Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS.

Viscount SANDON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the misconception existing as a result of investigations made by the International Labour Bureau as to industrial conditions in China; and whether he will take steps to see that the British representatives notify the League of Nations as to the facts regarding British, Japanese and Chinese conditions of labour respectively?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The Director of the International Labour Office has recently visited China and will, no doubt, on his return report to the Governing Body of the Office. It will then be possible to determine what, if any, action is called for on the part of the representative of His Majesty's Government on that Body.

HANKOW.

Mr. LOOKER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the annual sums due from the Chinese authorities concerned as a contribution towards the expenses of main taining the Hupeh road, in the ex-British concession at Hankow, pursuant to the agreement of the 29th June, 1926,
between the Chinese authorities, the late British municipal council, and His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow, are not being duly paid; and will he state what steps he proposes to take to get the terms of the agreement carried out?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have received a report on this matter. Representations to the local authorities have been made by His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow.

Mr. LOOKER: 4 and 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the garrison commander of the Chinese troops at Hankow and other Chinese Government officials are constantly interfering with the director of the bureau established by the Chen-O'Malley agreement, and issuing orders to him which are contrary to the regulations made pursuant so such agreement, and that such interference is undermining the authority of the council of the bureau and rendering the proper and efficient administration of the district an impossible task; and what action he proposes to take in the matter:
(2) whether His Majesty's Minister at Peking has received any representations from the British members of the council established by the Chen-O'Malley agreement as to the difficulties encountered by them in impartially carrying out the terms of that agreement and their duties thereunder owing to the obstruction of Chinese Government departments; whether any and, if so, what reply has been sent to such representations; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received reports from His Majesty's Minister at Peking regarding the difficulties arising in Special administrative District No. 3 at Hankow on account of the interference of various Chinese authorities together with the text of the representations made on the subject by the British councillors. Representations have been made to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Nanking, who has promised to issue instructions that there must be no outside interference with the former British concession, and Sir Miles Lampson is continually pressing Dr. Wang to ensure that his instructions are effective.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (NAVAL CONDITIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with reference to the question of the freedom of the seas, has any approach been made to him by the American Government in connection with the question of a conference respecting a treaty between the two English-speaking countries guaranteeing immunity of private property from seizure at sea; and will His Majesty's Government consider how far they can meet the American view and put this House in possession of the facts and present position?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Two questions arise out of that answer. In the first place, will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the exact wording of the Reed-Borah-Walsh amendment carried yesterday in the Senate on the inviolability of private property at sea; and, secondly, do the advantages thought to be gained by insisting on our right of search and seizure outweigh the drawbacks of an armament competition with America and the risk of bringing America in on the opposite side to us in any war or application of sanctions in which we are engaged?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt I shall receive in due course, the exact text of the resolution which was carried in the Senate. I rather deprecate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's second question. I have said that all questions concerning our relations with America and the naval conditions of the two countries are under consideration by His Majesty's Government. When I am in a position to make a statement on the subject, I wall do so; but I cannot make a statement until that inquiry is concluded, and I deprecate tendentious questions of the kind addressed to me by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether, in the interests of this country, it is not desirable that the Government should make up its mind on this vital question?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, but if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given any study to the question itself, he will know that it raises a great many very important issues which require careful and mature consideration as well as consultation at the proper time with the other Governments of the Empire.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the policy of this country to be governed entirely by the Admiralty?

MANCHURIA (RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British concessionnaires are free to undertake railway construction in Manchuria under Chinese auspices; and whether the open door exists in Manchuria for all forms of engineering work?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Railway construction in Manchuria is subject to the China Consortium Agreement of 15th October, 1920, in all cases where the issue of loans for public subscription is involved. By this agreement the principle of complete equality is affirmed between the British, French, Japanese and American Bank groups; and the respective Governments will give their complete support to their national groups who are members of the Consortium. Railway enterprise connected with certain specified lines, notably the South Manchurian Railway and its branch lines, is outside the scope of the Consortium and is reserved for Japanese interests. Details of the arrangement will be found in Command Paper 1214 of 1921 regarding the new financial Consortium in China. With the above important exceptions the "open door" exists in Manchuria for all forms of engineering work.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that outside the area specified by the right hon. Gentleman, British firms will be allowed to tender for Chinese railway construction, and that we have no arrangement with Japan to prevent British firms so tendering?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, there has been no such arrangement with Japan outside certain specified lines, notably
the South Manchurian Railway and its branch railways which are reserved to Japan.

SUDAN (LORD LLOYD'S VISIT).

Mr. THURTLE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the object of Lord Lloyd's six weeks' visit to the Sudan?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The object of Lord Lloyd's visit to the Sudan is to acquire first-hand knowledge of the problems which confront the Sudan Government and to maintain personal touch with the Governor-General and his advisers.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

COLONEL LAWRENCE.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government received any representations from the Afghan Government prior to the temporary abdication of King Amanulla, protesting against the activities of Colonel Lawrence in Afghan affairs; and did the Foreign Office take any measures, either directly, through the Government of India, or through the Air Council, to recall Colonel Lawrence from his post in India?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government received no representations from the Afghan Government. Colonel Lawrence was serving as an aircraftsman in the Royal Air Force, but in view of the deliberate misrepresentations of his presence on the North Western Frontier which were appearing in certain newspapers, and of the embarrassment which these misrepresentations were causing to His Majesty's Minister at Kabul, it was decided that it would be well to transfer Colonel Lawrence to another post and the Air Ministry accordingly arranged for his transfer out of India.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: In reference to the first part of the question, is there no truth in the report that the Foreign Office officials of King Amanulla did communicate with the British Minister to the effect that the King was greatly distressed by reading the report of Colonel Lawrence's attempt; and, arising out of the answer
to the latter part of the question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mysterious way in which Colonel Lawrence returned, has given currency to the report that the real Colonel Lawrence is still there, and that somebody else has been brought here?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The first part of the question was answered in the first part of my reply. We have had no representations from the Afghan Government. As to the second part, if the hon. Gentleman would occasionally devote himself to laying to rest rumours which have no foundation, instead of devoting all his energies to spreading them, he would contribute to the peace of the world.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, if Colonel Lawrence had returned quite openly, it would have done much to drive away suspicion and that this method of surreptitious landing and everything rather confirms the suspicion that it is a false man who is going about?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I neither agree with the hon. Gentleman's adjectives, nor with his meaning.

BRITISH POLICY.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which Government in Afghanistan is now in friendly touch with the British Government; and is there at present any official recognition or friendly support to one of the several claimants to the throne of Afghanistan?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Minister at Kabul is in unofficial touch with the de facto authority controlling the city in connection with local matters such as the safety and evacuation of foreign nationals. Similarly His Majesty's Consul at Kandahar is in unofficial touch with the Government of King Amanulla. As I have already informed the House, His Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering in Afghan affairs by supporting or assisting any of the parties at present contending for power in that country.

AMIR HABIBULLA.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how long and in what capacity did Amir Habibulla, one of the claimants to the
Afghan throne, serve in the British-Indian Army; and how long was he resident in Peshawar within the British frontier?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. So far as I am aware the Amir Habibulla has never served in any capacity in the Indian Army. He is reported to have lived at Peshawar for some three years.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I take it that the report which has been published here quite widely that he was a havildar in one of the British Indian regiments is entirely groundless?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SCOTTISH SHALE OIL.

Mr. SHINWELL: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the unemployment among the work people in the shale oil area of Scotland, he is prepared to use for naval purposes a larger quantity of Scottish shale oil in preference to the imported product?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on a similar subject on 24th April last.

Mr. SHINWELL: Why do the Government advocate the purchase of British goods, when they themselves will not purchase Scottish shale oil?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I explained to the hon. Member, when he previously raised this question, that the only reason why we do not buy Scottish shale oil is that it is too expensive.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is price to be considered when you are advocating the purchase of British goods?

DOCKYARDS (BOOKSTALLS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached regarding the management of bookstalls in his Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It has been decided not to make any change in the existing arrangements at present.

SINGAPORE BASE (CONTRACTORS' ORDERS).

Mr. LOLMS SMITH: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the placing abroad of the greater part of the order for the crushing machinery for the Singapore base, he will request the Government contractors to agree in future to meet the Admiralty officials in conference, together with representatives of the tendering firm quoting the most favourable terms, before an order exceeding £ 1,000 in value is placed, with the object of making every endeavour to retain the work involved for British workmen?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I regret that it is not practicable to request the contractors to agree to the proposal made in the question. An agreement was, however, made in December last that the contractors would consult the Admiralty before placing any orders abroad for plant exceeding £ 20,000 in value.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How does that answer square with the answer just given in regard to shale oil?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It seems to square perfectly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why in this case have the Admiralty purchased these goods from America while refusing to purchase goods from Scotland because they cost a little more?

COLONEL LAWRENCE.

Mr. THURTLE: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reason why an Admiralty launch was specially provided to enable Aircraftsman Shaw, otherwise Colonel Lawrence, to land on his return from India last Saturday?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: An Admiralty launch was not specially provided. A naval officer-of-the-guard boards all linens which call at Plymouth, and Aircraftsman Shaw was, at the request of the Royal Air Force authorities, allowed to land in the officer-of-the-guards' launch.

Mr. THURTLE: Will a similar courtesy be extended in future to all aircraftsmen returning from India?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: That is obviously a question that I cannot answer, and it depends, no doubt, on the action of the air officer.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that it was Aircraftsman Shaw?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

COLLIERIES, WREXHAM AND NORTH NOTTS (VACANCIES).

Viscount SANDON: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the inability of a colliery company in North Nottinghamshire, near Doncaster, and of the Nine Mile Point colliery, in Monmouthshire, and of two collieries near Wrexham, to obtain the miners they require either locally or elsewhere; how many vacancies in each of these instances exist; and what steps he will take as to transference of unemployed miners, if necessary from other areas, to meet this demand and ensure that such openings are not rejected by any who are suitable and are offered such posts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to vacancies at collieries in the Wrexham area and at a colliery in North Notts, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies, of which I am sending him copies, given on 30th January to the hon. and gallant Member for South-port (Sir G. Dalrymple-White) and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) and on 4th February to the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain). The situation at the Nine Mile Point Colliery is the subject of two further questions for to-day, of which Private Notice has been given, and will be dealt with in reply to those questions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to those that are not being dealt with by the private notice question, is it a fact that the reason why men cannot be obtained from these collieries is that the colliery owners refuse to negotiate with the men's leaders and will only take men who do not belong to the recognised union?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister said that these questions would be dealt with in reply to a Private Notice question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I am asking the Minister in regard to the Doncaster case, and I was leaving the other two cases alone.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be more convenient to deal with the whole thing at once

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But how can the matter with regard to Doncaster be dealt with in the other two answers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes, and if you will permit, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be well to deal with this, so as not to complicate the matter afterwards, and the answer is that, with regard to the one colliery at Wrexham, that certainly is not the case. We have found out that it was a matter of some of the lower grade workers, of whom it was difficult, as short time was being worked, to get a sufficient supply in the locality. I believe they have now been got, and I do not think the question of unions appears in it at all. I have not the information with regard to the point in the Nottinghamshire case either. All that happened there, as far as I am aware, was that the company was very particular as to the ability and skill of the workers whom it got. I can make inquiries as to whether the same sort of point came up, but I am not aware of it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then it is not a question of the unemployed miners being unwilling to-work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not to my knowledge.

Major MacANDREW: Has my right hon. Friend got any information about the Blacksyke pit, near Kilmarnock, where there are a lot of unemployed miners, and they cannot get men to work?

Mr. SHINWELL: In the Wrexham case, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North Wales Miners' Association have been unable to come to an arrangement with the management of the colliery concerned in connection with wages?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have arranged to leave that question until the other answers are given.

Mr. SHINWELL: No, Mr. Speaker I understand that the Wrexham case is not to be dealt with later.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The two cases, Mr. Speaker, which were previously dealt with, and to which I referred, were the colliery at Wrexham and the colliery in Nottinghamshire described here as near Doncaster. The case which I asked the hon. Member to allow me to answer at the end was a Monmouthshire case. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member, I have no information to that effect, but, if he wishes to put down a question, doubtless I shall be able to answer it.

Mr. SHINWELL: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a letter from the North Wales Miners' Association on this point, will he consider it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider anything from the hon. Member.

TRANSFERRED WORKERS, LONDON.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are being made to prevent the men employed in the Royal Parks, on completion of the present temporary employment, being left stranded in London?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th February to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on this question.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. WELLOCK: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the present indebtedness of the Unemployment Fund to the Exchequer?

Sir W. de FRECE: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the adverse balance of the Unemployment Fund on 31st January, 1929?

Sir A, STEEL-MAITLAND: The present debt of the Unemployment Fund to the Treasury is £ 33,460,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the weekly increase in the debt?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can give the hon. Member the figures, but I cannot state them from memory.

AGED WORKERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider introducing legislation to alter the provision under which a person who reaches the age of 65, and is not qualified for the old age pension, is yet not qualified to draw unemployment insurance benefit, though qualified to do so in every way, except that he or she has reached the age of 65?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir, I understand that the cases of this kind are very few in number, and I believe that the balance of advantage to insured persons is on the side of the present system. It would not be possible to make a special exception in their favour, without requiring payment of a further insurance premium not only from them, but from all persons aged 65 or over employed in insured trades. This would obviously lead to a demand that all persons aged 65 or over should be eligible for unemployment benefit and would lead to hopeless confusion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How does the light hon. Gentleman propose to see that the few who are adversely affected do rot continue to suffer injustice? Has he any proposal to make?

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a surplus of£32,000,000 over the actuarial estimate?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No.

RUBBER INDUSTRY (INSURED WORKERS).

Sir JOHN POWER: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the insured persons registered as belonging to the rubber industry are engaged in the manufacture of tyres?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

STATISTICS.

Sir J. POWER: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour for the latest available dates, the number of persons on the live register of the Employment Exchanges who were
in receipt of benefit; and the number not in receipt of benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics are not available regarding the number of persons on the live register who are actually in receipt of benefit. At 21st January, 1929, out of a total of 1,425,620 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, 1,222,201 had claims to benefit admitted or under consideration, leaving a balance of 203,419 who had no such claims. I should add that, while there are no exact statistics on the point, a considerable proportion of non-claimants are not insured persons.

BENEFIT (Ma. H. ELLIS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Herbert Ellis was refused benefit for six weeks at the Partick Exchange, Glasgow, on or about 15th December, 1928, for alleged not going to a job on that date, and that he appealed to a court of referees, held at Glasgow on 18th January, 1929; that the court refused benefit, refusing to accept as evidence a note produced by Mr. Ellis from the foreman of the job at which he was to start, stating he would not in any event have got the job as he was not suited for the work; that in their finding they state they do not appreciate the note obtained, as it was given by the foreman because of friendly relations with trade union officials; and, seeing that this casts a reflection on the character of foremen and trade union officials, will he have the case re-heard?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. There is no power to have cases re-heard unless fresh evidence has come to light, which was not before the statutory authorities when they originally heard the case.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Am I to understand that because trade union officials have developed the Government policy, and arc being friendly with employers and employers' representatives, the workpeople whom they represent are to be deprived of benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This decision lay with the independent court. The suggestion that the referee and the umpire or any member of such court, or,
as a matter of fact, any officer of my Department, has developed a policy of partiality with one side or the other, is a gross imputation on them, for which there is not a shadow of foundation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Court of Referees refused to accept the representations of foremen because of alleged friendly relations, and, on the other hand, that the court refused to accept evidence because of alleged enmity between foremen and trade union officials; and will he state if he intends to punish men because their trade union-officials develop friendly relations between the managers and themselves?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In this particular case, the House will not think that I want to argue the merits of the case, in which I have no power to intervene, if I say that there are many other circumstances in the case, one of which was that the claimant's main contention was that he was not feeling well enough for work on the day when he ought to Lave returned, but was not so unwell as to be ineligible for benefit.

BENEFIT (UNPAID WORK).

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HORE-BELISHA:

28. To ask the Minister of Labour what reply has been made to the representations that have been made that the unemployed in certain districts have offered to work in return for the unemployment benefit?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question which I put on the Paper was whether such representations had been made, and the question has been altered.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that certain unemployed men made an offer to a local authority to work for nothing. Whether, if unemployed men in receipt of benefit undertook work without pay it would involve disallowance of benefit, is a matter for the statutory authorities.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which was the authority?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It has slipped my memory, and I will send it to the hon. Member.

HULL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the new Employment Exchange premises shortly to be opened in Hull, there is inside accommodation for insured workers having business at the Exchange and waiting their turn to do their business; and how many persons can be accommodated under cover?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The internal waiting room space in this new Exchange will accommodate about 1,000 men and 400 women and this, ought to be sufficient to render outside queuing unnecessary if the applicants will co-operate in observing the timing arrangements.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the applicants are prepared to cooperate in the timing arrangements, only a quarter-of-an-hour is allowed for each class; and will he increase the staff so that men will not have to queue up and cause this congestion?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think that in any case the staff clearly ought not to be increased beyond what is reasonable: everyone realises that, given sufficient space, as I think there is, there should not be any queueing up.

DOCKERS, HULL (BENEFIT PAYMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that at the Hull Employment Exchanges unemployment benefit is only paid to dockers on Fridays, and that, in consequence, a man who has obtained work on a Friday, but has money due to him on his unemployment insurance, has to wait a week, until the following Friday, before he can draw it, although the proceeds of the one day's work which prevents him attending the Exchange on Friday, when money due to him would be normally paid, may be the only earnings he has been able to obtain in that time; and whether he can explain why it is not possible to pay unemployment insurance money to dockers on Saturday mornings as well as on Fridays, so as to obviate this hardship?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that any difficulty has arisen at Hull Employment Exchange in connection with the payment of benefit to
dockers who are unable to attend for payment on Fridays, but I should be glad to investigate any specific case that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while there may be no clerical difficulty, the men who work on the day on which their money should be paid have to wait another week before they can get it? That is the difficulty.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That, I think, should not be the case, because the Exchanges are kept open late on Friday on purpose to meet this difficulty, but, if that does not meet the situation, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will communicate with me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why the Exchanges should not be open on Saturday morning for the men who work late on ships?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is always a great deal of work passing through an Exchange, so that the reorganisation of hours and the change of days, always constitute a difficulty but, if the hon. and gallant Member satisfies me that there is a real case, I will go into it.

Mr. W. THORNE: where the doctors may work until 7 o'clock on Friday—and other workers, too—is it not a hardship if they cannot get their money before the following Friday; and cannot some arrangement be made to meet the situation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The times of payment have to be kept together; otherwise, the administrative difficulties would be so great that it would really constitute a dislocation of the system and cause an inordinate increase in the expenses of administration. That would be to the disadvantage of the insured persons who have to pay for it.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if men employed by private firms cannot get their money on Friday, they get it on the following day, or Monday; and why cannot the right hon. Gentleman's Department do the same thing?

NEWCASTXE-ON-TYNE.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the
number of unemployed in Newcastle-on-Tyne; and what is the percentage of unemployment there among insured workers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 21st January, 1929, there were 20,530 persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Elswick and Heaton and the percentage rate of unemployment among insured persons in the area was 20.3.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour what conditions have to exist before an area can be regarded as having a permanent surplus of labour for purposes of the industrial transference scheme?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Without attempting an exhaustive definition of such an area as that to which my hon. Friend alludes, I would say that it must be one in which a large proportion of the industrial population is no longer able, and is unlikely in the future to be able, to find employment within the area.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any standard by which these areas are judged?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give any fixed standard because all these areas vary indefinitely, and I have to apply general principles in order to ascertain whether they should be included.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask, therefore, what principles operate in order to give a decision?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have told the hon. Member that several reasons operate in order to come to a conclusion. One is the degree of unemployment, another is the amount of population, and a third is whether the place is sufficiently large and whether there are other industries in which perhaps the unemployed people can get work. These are three of the most important, and all these have to be weighed together in order to arrive at a decision.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the chief reason is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department want to
make believe that they are doing something, while they are doing nothing at all but playing the fool?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member no doubt judges by what he would do in similar circumstances.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister aware that the latest returns for the shipbuilding industry, on 17th December, 1928, show that in the Tyne area there were 46.7 per cent. unemployed?

BETHNAL GREEN.

Mr. HARRIS: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is possible to give the figures of the number of unemployed persons on the live register for the borough of Bethnal Green at the latest available date; if not, whether he will have a special inquiry made as to the amount of unemployment in that borough, as the present system of including the figures with those for Hackney, Shore-ditch and Stepney deprives persons resident in that borough of the advantages which go to districts with a high percentage of unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green includes parts of the areas served by the Employment Exchanges in Shoreditch, Stepney, Hackney and Stratford, and it is not possible, except by way of an approximate estimate, to give the number of unemployed persons resident in Bethnal Green. I am not aware that the absence of precise statistics for this borough deprives persons resident therein of advantages which they would otherwise obtain.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the circumstances to which I have drawn attention, men living in Bethnal Green are deprived of advantages which go to men in Ber-mondsey, Poplar and Deptford, and that, in connection with many jobs for which they make application to the London County Council and other authorities, they are refused work, because they are supposed to live in a district where unemployment is low, although it is really higher than in some other boroughs?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: While I cannot answer for the action of the London County Council, I am quite sure
that they are well aware of the particular conditions in Bethnal Green, even though statistics for the different places cannot be distributed.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the list of addresses where all the registered unemployed live available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The tabulation of these different statistics would cause infinite trouble.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Minister aware that the same conditions as to registering apply to Poplar, and we are able to get our numbers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a question of how the statistics are kept. As everyone familiar with them knows, if they are kept in areas, an area can be tabulated, but, if it is a question of dividing up areas, then you begin to com-plicate matters so much that it causes a great deal of extra trouble and expense. If the trouble and expense were worth it, it would be done, but, in this case, I do not see from the hon. Member's own point of view that it would be worth it.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be worth it, that these men have been trying for jobs and feel bitter because men coming from other parts of the country are getting the jobs?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me any cases, I will look into them.

BIRMINGHAM (TRANSFERRED WORKERS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the number of unemployed in the city of Birmingham and, particularly, in the Deritend Division, he will consider the advisability of cancelling the instructions to the Employment Exchanges in the city on the working of the industrial transference scheme?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to the last published figures, the percentage of unemployment in the Birmingham area has decreased from 11.9 per cent. in 1924 to 7.8 per cent., and is now 50 per cent. less than the corresponding figure for Great Britain as a whole. In the same period the insured population has increased by 8.2 per cent. In view. there-
fore, of the inflow of population which is taking place (and apparently likely to continue in any event), while the local percentage of unemployment is decreasing, I am not prepared to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. DENNISON: In view of the fact that the City Corporation of Birmingham and the Birmingham Board of Guardians have made representations to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government to refrain from sending transferred unemployed to Birmingham, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply, and see that people living in Birmingham who are unemployed are given employment before transferred unemployed are imported?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will always consider any communications made to me either by the authorities of the city or of the Poor Law Union in Birmingham.

Mr. DENNISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received communications from these two bodies, or has he not?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not recently; and I have no reason to believe that the city council of Birmingham take the view of the hon. Member.

Mr. DENNISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what he means by "recently," because I have information that within the last three weeks a protest has been made to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not know of anything recently. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will find out any date and let him know.

COURT OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that certain members of the workpeople's panel on the court of referees in Glasgow, and particularly women members, had never been invited to sit on any court, while at the same time courts have not had any workpeople's representative attending; and if he will take steps to have this remedied?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that there has been any departure in Glasgow from the rule that each member of the panel shall, so far as
practicable, be summoned to serve in turn upon the court, but, if the hon. Member will furnish me with the name of any person who he suggests has not been called in turn, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

BENEFIT CLAIMS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour, if he is aware that persons who have unemployment claims throughout the country, and particularly in Glasgow, are asked to appear before an official called the insurance officer; that he subjects the claimant to a severe cross-examination, asking questions to find out if the person is genuinely seeking work; that the Report is then submitted to the courts of referees by this officer containing only part of the unemployed person's claim; that this insurance officer does not appear in person to substantiate his written statement; and that the court in most cases take the view of the insurance officer; and if he will take steps to set up a committee of inquiry into this system or, if not, will he take steps to establish another method of settling claims?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not recognise the procedure in the description which the hon. Member gives. Persons claiming benefit are required by the Unemployment Insurance Acts to prove that they satisfy the statutory conditions, and they must, therefore, be interviewed and, if necessary, questioned. But I know of no ground for supposing that the procedure is conducted otherwise than quite fairly and with every desire to do full justice to the claimant, while protecting the Unemployment Fund from improper claims.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is now claiming for these courts of referees privileges which do not apply in the ordinary courts of law? In an ordinary court of law a person who makes a statement must submit to be cross-examined. if need be, by the person who is the subject of the statement he has made, and will he not see that in these courts of referees the person who has made a statement must attend the court in order that he may be cross-examined?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make with regard to procedure in the courts
of referees, I wish he would let me have them, and I will consider them in order to see whether they can be adopted; but I could not possibly give any answer in advance as to altering procedure.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is claiming immunity from criticism in this House for these courts of referees, will he not take steps to see that the procedure is similar to that in ordinary courts of law in this respect, that a man should be placed in at least as good a position as he would be in any other court?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I must ask for notice of any question such as that.

Mr. BROAD.: Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the appointment of these referees, and is it not his Department which decides how many days they sit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am responsible for the appointments.

Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the first reply, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that statements are signed by insurance officers and submitted to the courts of referees, and that the applicants have no opportunity of cross-examining those officers or challenging the statements which they have signed and submitted? Will he not see to it that applicants arc given a fairer chance of making their ease clear to the court of referees by requiring that the insurance officer should be present in order to substantiate the statements on the paper which have been signed by him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will communicate with me or put down a question, I will consider his suggestion. When a decision of the court of referees is called into question, I must have notice of the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has already asked that further questions on this subject should be put on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With all due respect to the Minister and to you, I submit that the Minister has not answered that part of my question which asks whether he is prepared to set up a committee of inquiry. May I ask if he will kindly answer that part of the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: If there is any part of the question to which he has not received an answer, the hon. Member is entitled to put a supplementary question, but I do not think it is useful to have a number of supplementary questions on exactly the same lines.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I certainly am not prepared to set up a committee of inquiry, but I am quite prepared to look into any points which hon. Members bring to my attention.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister aware that, since this re-arrangement with regard to the court of referees, workers in my constituency, which is eight miles away from Glasgow, have now to go from Clydebank to Glasgow before the court of referees—

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).

Sir J. POWER: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the fluctuation of the index number of the cost of living was not more than four points during 1928, he is now pre-pared to carry out a fresh inquiry into the cost of living with a view to the index being placed on a more modern basis?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that conditions of employment are not sufficiently normal to warrant the extensive inquiries which would be necessary in order to provide the data required to form a basis for a revised cost of living index number. It is desirable that a revised basis, when determined, should receive general acceptance and serve for a long period of years, and in view of this I think that the revision cannot well be undertaken at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

IRON TRADE (DISPUTE).

Mr. DENNISON: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour what action, if any, his Department has taken to effect a setlement of the dispute between the owners and the operatives in the manufactured iron trade in the West of Scot-
land; is he aware that a board of conciliation and arbitration has been in existence for 32 years and that the practice of the industry has been to settle differences without stoppage of work; that arbitration has been refused by the employers and that the workpeople have been locked out; and, seeing that (although certain of these manufacturers have been requested by the Admiralty to tender for contracts) the fair wages Clause is not being observed, he will take immediate steps to deal with the situation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My Department has been in close touch with both sides with a view to assisting them in reaching an amicable settlement, which, in view of the facts to which the hon. Member refers, I hope will yet be achieved. The question as regards the fair wages Clauses is a matter for the contracting departments concerned.

Mr. DENNISON: In view of the Prime Minister's pledge on behalf of the Government to have "Peace in our time, O Lord," will the Department that is concerned with peace in industry bring the employers to book in respect to these matters?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am doing my best to get peace in all these industries and all these districts.

Mr. BARR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in a constituency like my own, where there has been very prolonged distress, this dispute is adding greatly to that distress, and will he use all his good offices and all pressure to bring this unfortunate dispute to an end?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am always using what good offices I can, but I always have to use discretion. Some times, if one interferes indiscreetly or unwisely, one does harm and not good, but so far as I can I do my best to bring the parties together.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to bring before the Prime Minister, with a view to laying the matter before the various contracting Departments, the fact that several of these firms which are doing Government contracts have locked out their men?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that for 32 years there has been no dispute, that a conciliation board has been in working order, and that this is the first time it has broken down, because the employers have refused to go to arbitration—not the men, but the employers?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE (P-CLASS CLERKS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that P-class clerks employed in the claims and record office of his Department have recently been prevented from the continued performance of work upon which they have been satisfactorily engaged for many years past, and which is work proper to the established clerical grades, and placed on lower grade work; and will he state why this has been done?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No general transference of any class of clerks from one type of duty to another has been made. Such adjustments as have been found necessary during recent months have been of a minor character, and have followed the principle that work of a superior character should be entrusted to established clerks rather than to temporary and P-class clerks.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that these transfers have not been made on account of the application which has been made that these men should be paid in accordance with the work they are doing?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir, not to my knowledge.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of changing the designation of the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Employment, the Minister of Labour to Minister of Employment, the Labour Exchange to Employment Exchange, as the inference was held in some poor industrial districts that what is known as labour pay comes from the Labour party?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The time to consider any change in the title of the Ministry of Labour would be in connection with a review of the more general question of the reallocation among different Departments of the functions of Government and would even in itself involve legislation. The change in name from "Labour Exchange" to "Employment Exchange," which my hon. Friend now suggests, was made more than 10 years ago.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of re-naming these Exchanges the Ministry of Unemployment Exchanges?

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

REFUELLING AIRCRAFT.

Viscount SANDON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the successful experiments of the Question Mark in the United States of America in refuelling in the air, he will introduce it into the routine of civil, naval, and military aviation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Experiments in refuelling aircraft in flight have been carried out successfully at the Royal Aircraft establishment, and the experience thus gained is available whenever it is required. To prescribe this method of refuelling, however, for Service or civil machines, as a matter of routine, if that is. my Noble Friend's suggestion, could hardly, I think, be regarded as a reasonable or indeed practicable requirement.

AIR SERVICES (LONDON-INDIA).

Mr. MALONE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make concerning the progress of the preparations for the London-to-India civil air service?

Sir S. HOARE: I am glad to say that excellent progress has been made to date and that all necessary arrangements for the opening of this service in the spring according to programme are satisfactorily in train.

NATIONAL FLYING SERVICES, LIMITED.

Colonel APPLIN: 44
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that a company called the
National Flying Services, Limited, has been formed to establish aerodromes and flying schools and generally to carry on the business of aviation on a commercial basis; that the schemes of this company were developed in close co-operation with an official or officials of the Air Ministry, with the result that this company has secured for itself a privileged position amongst its commercial competitors by the promise of an exclusive subsidy from the Government; that one or more of the officials has since resigned from the Air Ministry and is now financially interested in this company; and whether he can give an assurance to the House that the existing aviation clubs and similar companies will not be penalised by being placed in a worse position financially by reason of the discontinuation of Government subsidies or other assistance;
(2) whether, before granting a Government subsidy to National Flying Services, Limited, he has satisfied himself that the commercial prospects of this enterprise have been examined and approved by any commercial aviation expert outside the Air Ministry;
(3) where any aerodromes now under construction by private firms are situated; and whether the proposed subsidy to National Flying Services, Limited, will be extended to them?

Sir S. HOARE: In view of the widespread interest in the scheme to which these questions refer, I will, with the permission of the House, answer them somewhat fully. As regards the first part of Question No. 44, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the White Paper (Cmd. 3264) which was laid last week and which gives brief particulars of the grants to be made to National Flying Services, Limited.
I may supplement these particulars by saying that I am hopeful that this company's organisation will give those interested in aviation in a number of provincial centres an opportunity of associating themselves with the development of flying in this country and, if they so desire, of actually qualifying as pilots, which has hitherto been denied them, but for which I am satisfied that there is at the present time a widespread and growing demand. I may add that the scheme is essentially one of payment by results
and I need not elaborate the manifest advantages which will accrue to the State, no less than the general public, if it meets with the success which its promoters anticipate, These advantages—for example, the provision of a large reserve of qualified pilots and the creation of a chain of new aerodromes and landing grounds—could not possibly be secured otherwise than through the medium of a commercial organisation without a very much larger expenditure from Air Votes than is entailed by the proposed grants.
As regards the second and third parts of the question, proposals for the formation of a company on these lines were first communicated to me by the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North (Captain Guest), to whose public-spirited efforts to promote the development of British aviation I should like to pay a passing tribute. Prior to their embodiment in the scheme now adopted, there were naturally a number of consultations both with myself and Air Ministry officials. It is the case that one temporary official, whose services I am very sorry to lose, has resigned his appointment to take up work in the new company. I may add that his appointment was a technical one, and that he was not responsible in any way for the conduct of the financial negotiations. Any implication, therefore, that undue favour was secured by the company through his instrumentality is entirely devoid of foundation.
As regards the last part of the question, no change is contemplated in the agreements under which the existing light aeroplane clubs are subsidised.
The answer to Question No. 48 is in the negative. The commercial prospects of the company are a matter for the promoters and subscribers, and the Air Ministry's part in the transaction is confined to the payment of certain grants dependent upon the concrete results explained in the White Paper. Since, however, certain acknowledged financial and commercial flying experts have accepted seats on the board, it would seem a legitimate deduction that these gentlemen are satisfied that the company's scheme is soundly conceived and has a reasonable prospect of success.
As regards Question No. 49, apart from the aerodromes in contemplation by municipal authorities and National Flying Services, Limited, the only aerodrome under construction by a private firm, so far as I am aware, is that situated at Heston, near Hounslow. An application for a licence for an aerodrome site at Tavistock has also been received from a private individual. The answer to the second part of this question is in the negative. The self-contained and comprehensive scheme of National Flying Services, Limited— covering as it does the provision of aircraft as well as aerodromes and landing grounds, the training of pilots, and numerous other activities for the development of flying in a number of different centres where there are at present no facilities—is obviously in an entirely different category from the construction of isolated individual aerodromes with or without shed accommodation.

Colonel APPLIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: After the long answer that has been given, if we had any sup plementary questions we might have a repetition of it which would not be desirable.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I wish to raise a point of Order. The answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman makes it plain that an appeal is about to be made to the public for subscriptions of capital based on the assumption—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Captain GARRO-JONES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether—

Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member was putting to me contained no point of Order.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Then I wish to raise another point of Order. I did not quite catch the remark which you made, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) rose to put a supplementary question after the answer to his three questions had been given. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when three questions
are answered as one whether you rule that not a single supplementary question can be asked and for what reason?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, I did not give that Ruling.

Colonel APPLIN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question again on the first available Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

At end of Questions:

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a-definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announcement made for the first time by the Secretary of State for Air, to-day, that a private company is to be formed, subsidised by the. Treasury up to a maximum of nearly £ 100,000, without the consent of this House, and without any Government control or voice in its affairs, and that a public subscription of nearly £ 500,000 is shortly to be invited for a company whose commercial prospects are grounded upon the prejudged approval of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The subject of the Motion which the hon. and gallant Member desires to move in order to secure the Adjournment of the House, obviously does not come under Standing Order No. 10. It is clear that the time to raise the question will be when the Government ask for the money for this particular purpose.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I respectfully submit that there is an element of urgency, in that the Minister has announced that the public are to be invited immediately to subscribe this very large sum of money, contingent upon the approval of this House. which has not been given? I submit that, if this practice is to be continued, without some discouragement from the Chair and the House, the House is liable to find itself faced by similar actions in the future and may be influenced in voting the money by the fact that the public have already subscribed.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not alter the fact that the time to raise this question will be when the Government ask the House to vote the money.

Captain GARRO-JONES: With great respect, may I not submit that when the
Government come to ask the House to approve of the expenditure, it will be too late to prevent the money being subscribed by the public, and that, if the House in the exercise of its undoubted discretion refuses to vote the money, the people will have been mulcted in a loss.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Clynes.

RYE LIFEBOAT DISASTER (RELIEF FUND).

Mr. BROMLEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the position of the dependants of the Rye lifeboatmen who lost their lives by the sinking of their boat when endeavouring to succour a vessel in trouble at sea, and for whom a public subscription created a fund to assist their distress; if he is aware that this fund is being withheld from the people for whom it was subscribed; and will he take some action in the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have been asked to reply. I have no information from official sources, but from such other information as I have received I understand that the persons holding the funds have taken legal advice with a view to the establishment of a scheme for the benefit of the dependants. I am also informed that the present needs of the dependants are being satisfied.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the expenditure incurred by consulting counsel and taking legal advice be borne by the fund itself?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not able to answer that question, but I may say now that the matter has been brought to my attention, and, with a view to facilitating the more speedy use of the fund, I have asked the Mayor of Rye if he can find it convenient to see me.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECRUITS).

Mr. THURTLE: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if it is customary for the Air Force to accept recruits for service under assumed names when it is known that such names are assumed?

Sir S. HOARE: There can hardly be said to be anything "customary" in a matter of this kind, but it is well recog-
nised that men do enlist in assumed names, for a variety of reasons, and definite provision is made in the regulations that a man who has done so may subsequently have his true name recorded by making a statutory declaration in the prescribed form.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the Air Force accept a recruit when they know that he is using an assumed name?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer is, "Yes, they do."

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

IMPORTED BARLEY.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the difficulties under which growers of barley in this country are suffering owing to the large imports of foreign barley; and whether he will consider legislation under which foreign barley shall only be admitted into this country under licence?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am fully aware of the effects of the imports of foreign barley. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), on the 30th January last.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY OFFICERS' PAY.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider revising the present pay of Army officers in India; whether he is aware that a large percentage of officers, both in the British and Indian armies in India,, live under a permanent burden of debt owing to their insufficient pay and constant moves without sufficient allowance to cover the expense of such moves; and whether he is aware that the overseas allowance granted to Civil Service officials on the recommendation of the Lee Commission was not also given to the Army officer, whose pay
is less than that of his contemporaries in rank in the police, public works department, or forest services?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The present scales of pay were fixed in 1925 and are subject to revision in 1930. Recent inquiries have not disclosed any grounds for regarding them as inadequate, except perhaps as regards the furlough pay of Indian Army officers which is under separate consideration. As regards the last part the position was explained in a reply given to the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman) on the 2nd July last, of which a copy is being sent to my hon. and gallant Friend.

RIOTS, BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: May I ask the House to turn to another battlefield? May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give to the House regarding the riots in Bombay and Calcutta, beyond those which have appeared in the Press?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply, as my Noble Friend is unable to be present on account of an injury to his hand. My Noble Friend has, up to the present, received no further information regarding the rioting in Bombay than has appeared in the Press. No official reports have been received of rioting in Calcutta.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether it is correct that a British police officer has been killed by the rioters?

Captain MARGESSON: There is no official confirmation of that report.

DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state for four weeks ending 11th August, 8th September, 6th October, 3rd November, 1st December, 29th December and 26th January the average amount per head per week which has been distributed to recipients from the Lord Mayor's Fund?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): In view of the form in which relief is distributed, it would not be possible to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

Miss BONDFIELD: Is the Noble Lord aware that a committee for distribution was set up six weeks ago, approved by Mr. Curtis-Bennett, for the Seaton Burn district, and that, three weeks ago, hundreds of pounds were sent by Kingston-on-Thames to the Lord Mayor's Fund earmarked for Seaton Burn, but that up to the present not one penny has been received by the local committee?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not aware of that fact. If the hon. Lady will give me particulars, I will inquire into it.

Mr. DENNISON: In view of the difficulties that many distressed and unemployed workpeople are experiencing, will the Noble Lord lay down, by a White Paper or by an answer to a question, what the term "mining area" means for the purpose of the distribution of the Lord Mayor's Fund?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Sir W. de FRECE: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education the steps which are being taken to organise the collection of money in aid of the Lord Mayor's Mansion House Fund, as apart from the methods of distribution; whether there is any section of the administration which solely concerns itself with this aspect of the movement for the relief of distress; and, if not, whether he will suggest its establishment?

Lord E. PERCY: The organisation of local machinery for the collection of contributions to the fund rests with the Lords-Lieutenant and with the heads of municipalities in England and Wales. One of the functions of the coalfields distress funds organisation is to coordinate these various appeals and to give advice and assistance to those who are responsible for them. It has not been found necessary that any section of the central administration should be devoted solely to this purpose, and the fact that, since the central machinery was set up, the fund has increased from, approximately,£150,000 to, approximately.
£650,000 is, I think, sufficient evidence of the adequacy of the present arrangements.

Mr. MALONE: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education what arrangements are made to control the purchase of boots and shoes from the Lord Mayor's Fund; how and what purchases have been made; whether competitive tenders have been invited and, if not, what has decided the placing of any orders; and what steps have been taken to confine the purchases to boots manufactured in Great Britain and to ensure a reasonable standard of quality?

Lord E. PERCY: The purchase of boots and shoes from the Lord Mayor's Fund is effected wholly by the local organisations of the fund, and it would not be possible, without calling for returns from the various committees, to give particulars of purchases made. No rules have been laid down in regard to the source of supplies or the methods by which they should be obtained, the decision on these matters being left to the divisional committees, who are in a position to judge of the methods best suited to their particular requirements and circumstances.

Mr. MALONE: Can the Noble Lord give an assurance that there is no truth in the statement that shoddy boots at 4s. 9d. a pair have been sent to the miners, and particularly that they were not bought in Northamptonshire?

Lord E. PERCY: The only information that I have about that allegation is its positive denial in yesterday's papers.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the initial capital of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes consisted of the balance of the assets of the Navy and Army Canteens Board, he will state what sum was paid for the assets of the Navy and Army Canteens Board, and by whom it was paid?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): As stated in the Preamble to the War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Act, 1922, the Navy, Army and Air Force
Institutes took over the outstanding assets and liabilities of the Navy and Army Canteens Board. No payment was made in this connection, but the disposal of the available surplus assets is dealt with in the Schedule to that Act.

RHINELAND (BRITISH TROOPS).

Mr. HARRIS: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of British troops now retained in the German occupied territory; and where they are located?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The strength of the British Army of the Rhine, excluding the small detachment about 100 strong in the Saar district, was approximately 6,000 on the 1st January last. These troops are stationed in the vicinity of Wiesbaden.

BRITISH SHIPS (CREW SPACE).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 61.
asked the President of the. Board of Trade if it is proposed that the joint committee recently set up by the Minister of Health and himself shall inquire into the question of hygiene of crews' spaces, with a view to reporting on the sufficiency and efficiency, or otherwise, of the existing sanitary code to secure a reasonable standard of sanitary requirements for all British ships?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The question of crew spaces on board ship is within the scope of the Joint Advisory Committee> set up by the Ministry of Health and Board of Trade, and a special series of reports on the subject have been placed before the Committee for their consideration.

Dr. DAVIES: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received representations from the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Royal Sanitary Institute, the Merchant Service Guild, and the Association of Port Sanitary Authorities, stating that the conditions under which merchant seamen are housed on British ships are, from a hygienic standpoint, unsatisfactory and inferior to those on ships of similar tonnage of certain other nationalities; and what reply he has returned?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Representations have been received from one of the bodies mentioned. No detailed reply was sent, but those representations will be considered in connection with any amendment of the crew space regulations, which are now under review. The conditions on some British ships, especially some of the smaller and older ships, cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and the conditions on some foreign ships are very good; but it is misleading to suggest that crew spaces on British ships generally are unsatisfactory from the hygienic standpoint and inferior to those on foreign ships.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who is reviewing this matter? Is it the Board of Trade itself?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, the Joint Advisory Committee representing the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health.

Dr. DAVIES: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during 1917 and 1918 the Board of Trade possessed statutory powers to decide the type and position of crews' spaces on British merchant ships; to insist upon the provision of such amenities as two-berth cabins, mess rooms, bath and wash rooms, drying rooms, outside oilskin lockers, and hospital room, as well as to compel we accommodation as a matter of necessity and without consideration respecting tonnage reductions; that these powers are not at present being enforced: and does he propose to take any steps to restore these war-time amenities to merchant seamen in British ships?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The statutory powers of the Board of Trade in this matter have not changed, and any changes made in the instructions have been in the direction of requiring a higher standard. I may add that many owners go considerably beyond the minimum requirements.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. STEPHEN: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the algebraical equations which determine the mathematical curves which define the
density factor in connection with the formula under the Local Government (Scotland) Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The density factor is one of several to which effect is given in the formula, and it may be convenient to give the formula in full. I propose to do this in the OFFICIAL REPORT as it is somewhat long.

Mr. STEPHEN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman replied to that question. It being after 3.45, I did not call the hon. Member for the Camlachie Divison (Mr. Stephen) to put the question which he has down.

Following is the formula:

Let p=the population of a county in the standard year, as estimated by the Registrar-General for Scotland.

Let c=50 or the number of children under five years of age per 1,000 of the population, whichever is the greater.

Let a=12.5 or the rateable value in £ per head of the population, according to the valuation list in force in the standard year, whichever is the less.

Let u=1.5 or the percentage of unemployed men calculated as explained in Cmd. 3135, whichever is the greater.

Let m=the number of persons per mile of public road.

Then (1) if m is greater than or equal to 100, the weighted population is:

p(1+c-50/50+12.5-a/12.5)

(1+u-1.5/10+50/m)

(2) If m is less than 100, the weighted population is:

p(1+c-50/50+12.5-a/12.5)

(1+u-1.5/10+200-m/200)

In the case of the large burghs, the last term in the second bracket is always taken as zero, as there is no weighting for low density of population in these cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BUNKER COAL SUPPLIES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that steamers are now waiting their turns for bunker coal in the Tyne;. and whether, in view of the cost in-
volved in these delays, steps are being taken to secure a better balance between the demand and supply of bunker coal?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone).

MINES (REOPENING).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines the names of collieries in the United Kingdom which have been re-opened during the past six months or which are pending re-opening, and approximately the numbers who will be employed at these mines?

Commodore KING: The number of collieries in Great Britain which were closed on 31st July last, or have closed subsequently for at least a month and have since re-opened, is 142, employing 28,100 workpeople. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a list of them. In addition, 38 new pits, employing 917 workpeople, have opened. I regret that I have no information beyond that appearing in the Press with regard to pits which the owners contemplate re-opening.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Has my hon. and gallant Friend any idea as to whether the closed pits are likely to be opened in the near future?

Commodore KING: I have said in my answer that I regret that I have no information, beyond that appearing in the Press, with regard to pits which the owners contemplate re-opening.

NINE MILE POINT COLLIERY, MONMOUTH (DISPUTE).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state fully the circumstances in which the Nine Mile Point Colliery in South Wales was closed?

Commodore KING: A return notifying the closing of this colliery on the 3rd November gives want of trade as the cause.

Mr. CLYNES: May I further ask whether the continuance of the stoppage now is due to the mineowners endeavour-
ing to recruit individually, and refusing to meet the men's accredited representatives through the Miners' Federation?

Commodore KING: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not the fact that the present condition of affairs at this colliery is largely due to a misapprehension on the pare of the members of the Miners' Federation in the district, who have never been told that an objectionable condition in the terms of working was removed earlier than the 28th January last?

Mr. CLYNES: On a point of Order. Yesterday there were numerous supplementary questions relating to the subject covered by the question which has now been put and answered, and an under standing was reached that a full answer would be given to a question which we should be permitted to put to-day. That question was framed and, in accordance with the usual practice, was submitted to you. The latter part of the question was as follows:
Whether the employers have refused to meet the accredited representatives of the men concerned and discuss terms for resumption of work?
As I understand, Mr. Speaker, you could not permit that part of the question to be submitted. I should like to ask why, and to submit to you the view that that was the more substantial part of the inquiry on which we wanted information, in view of yesterday's scene.

Mr. SPEAKER: If anything has been cut out of a question, it is very unusual for the reasons to be asked for, and still more unusual for the reasons to be given, but I should like, for the right hon. Gentleman's information, to tell him that there is a very strict Rule of this House, which is very strictly carried out, that, when questions are handed in, nothing in a question put to any Department shall relate to matters for which the Minister responsible for that Department has no actual responsibility. That is one of the strictest Rules governing questions in this House. Therefore, it would be most unfair to the House in general if anything were allowed to come in in a Private Notice Question which was not allowed in questions handed in in the ordinary way at the Table. That is the reason why this and other questions have been treated in that way.

Mr. CLYNES: May I respectfully submit that one of the functions of the Mines Department and the Ministry of Labour is to deal with disputes particularly when they are prolonged, with a view to settling them by arrangement with the parties to the dispute. In this instance one of the two parties clearly is the mineowners, and we have submitted, as a fact, that the mineowners have refused to meet the accredited representatives of the workmen in order to arrange terms of settlement, and I still hold the view that we are entitled to put that as part of a question relating to the trouble?

Mr. EDWARDS: Is the Minister aware that there is a Conciliation Board agreement in existence in South Wales with rules for the settlement of disputes, and that the colliery company are signatories to that agreement and have a member on the Board, and is not the action of the management of the colliery a violation of that agreement?

Commodore KING: I know there is a Conciliation Board in that district but, without notice, I could not say whether this colliery is a member of it or not.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that the request made by the management to the miners in this colliery is a contravention of the Eight Hours Act, and, further, is it not a fact that the Umpire decided in favour of the men and granted them unemployment benefit; and is not his decision positive proof that the miners were not refusing work under proper conditions?

Commodore KING: I think that point really anticipates another Private Notice question which is to be answered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, to consider this? The question that is now being answered is one which was originally addressed to the Secretary for Mines, but at his request it was transferred to the Ministry of Labour. That fact was brought to the notice of the Minister of Labour last night. But the question in its original form was handed to the Mines Department. It was transferred to the Ministry of Labour at the special request of the Secretary for Mines, in
view of the fact that the latter part of the question related to Ministry of Labour administration and could not be answered by the Secretary for Mines, in order to fulfil a promise given to the House yesterday that a full statement on the matter would be made to the House to-day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think a misunderstanding has arisen owing to the fact that there is another Private Notice question down which is addressed to me on the subject. The point of discrimination is that so far as mining concerns are in question any point as regards unemployment benefit arising out of them naturally falls to be addressed to me, and any point as regards industrial relations should be addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend. That is the distinction between coal mining and other industries. Questions concerning industrial relations in any other industry are addressed to me, and questions concerning relations in the mining industry are addressed to the Secretary for Mines. The other question on the unemployment benefit side of it has yet to be put, and I have yet to answer it.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. I understand that you, Sir, have said that questions relating to matters of conciliation or disputes could not be properly addressed to the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not say that. I only said that a question cannot be addressed to a Minister on matters for which he has no responsibility.

Mr. SHINWELL.: Precisely. That was my interpretation. May I, therefore, put this question to the Secretary for Mines? When did the Ministry cease to interest itself in industrial disputes in the mining industry? Has it not always been the function of the Mines Department since its inception, to take cognisance of all matters relating to the mining industry, not only on the commercial and statistical side, but in relation to industrial matters? Has it not frequently intervened in industrial disputes?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the question is addressed to me or to the Secretary for Mines, but that does not alter the fact that nothing can be put down or asked for for which the Minister himself is not directly responsible.

Commodore KING: Neither the colliery owners nor the representatives of the men have so far approached me with regard to this matter.

Mr. JONES: Is it not the duty of the Secretary for Mines in a matter of this sort to take the initiative himself?

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I understood you, Sir, to rule that no question can in future be put to a Minister unless the matter is under his control. May I with a rather long experience of the House, put it to you respectfully, that the rule in the past has been that questions might be put to Ministers not merely on matters over which they have control but on matters of which they have knowledge, which might be of interest to Members of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: All I said was that questions cannot be put to a Minister on matters for which he has no responsibility.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. Do we understand that, even though the Minister may have no direct responsibility, the House has no right to obtain authoritative information on certain things from him by way of question?

Mr. J. JONES: Is it. any use putting questions seeing that there is no knowledge on the bench opposite?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have nothing to add for the Ruling which I have given.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether in the case of the Nine Mile Point Colliery dispute the decision of the Umpire was due to the existence of a condition which infringed the 1908 Act, and what is the position as regards unemployment benefit?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. There was a question on the Paper yesterday for a written answer in the name of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir R. Gower) which was not answered—there is no answer circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT—and which would have given us information on a matter that was under examination yesterday. There were a number of questions asked arising out of a question to the Secretary for Mines
by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).

Mr. SPEAKER: We can only deal now with the question which has just been asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is on this very point. We were promised an answer to a question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman which gave the impression that work was available for miners which they would not accept. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took the responsibility of promising an answer to that question. As this question has been framed—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait and hear the reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I make my point of Order? In view of the question that is put, it will be possible for no answer to be given on the matter which really interests this side of the House. My point of Order is: will you allow a further question to be put to the Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: If I consider that the answer given by the Minister of Labour needs more elucidation, I will allow hon. Members to put supplementary questions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Owing to trade depression, the Nine Mile Point Colliery (owned by the Ocean Coal Company) gave notice to their men to terminate employment on and from 3rd November, 1928. New terms of employment were submitted to the men, but these were rejected. Benefit was disallowed by the insurance officer on the ground that employment had been lost by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. On an appeal to the court of referees the decision of the insurance officer was upheld. The South Wales Miners' Federation then appealed to the umpire, who, in a decision No. 5672/1928, dated 14th January, 1929, allowed benefit on the ground that the terms offered entailed a breach of the Coal Mines Act, 1908 (as amended by the Coal Mines Acts of 1919 and 1926). Arrears of benefit due have been paid to the men. The colliery subsequently offered new terms of employment on 25th
January, 1929. It is understood that these new terms were:

(a) For day wage-men remuneration on the same basis as that operative prior to the termination of the employment at the colliery on 3rd November, 1928, and
(b) for colliers—i.e., piece workers— the legal minimum wage.
These terms were offered to the men, individually, and no approach was made by the colliery to the South Wales Miners' Federation, who, it is understood, contend that any alteration in remuneration of piece workers should be submitted to the Monmouthshire and South Wales Conciliation Board for consideration. A few men have accepted the offer of employment, but the majority have rejected the new terms. On 4th February, the chief insurance officer disallowed benefit as from 28th January in respect of six test cases on the ground that the men were not unable to obtain suitable employment. Benefit has also been suspended in respect of all the men who were offered work on the new terms and declined to accept it, and the men who were invited by the local office to be interviewed for the vacancies and did not respond to the invitation. The men are now appealing to the court of referees against the decision of the insurance officer, and it is understood that an appeal in respect of the six test cases is being lodged immediately.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether, in view of the facts recited in the answer, the right hon. Gentleman does not now think that the case should be, as suggested by the Miners' Federation, remitted for decision to the Conciliation Board, and that his Department should intervene to that end?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir; there are two distinct points. The one is a point of unemployment benefit; the other is a question of intervention in a dispute such as this. As far as benefit is concerned, as I have always said, that can only be settled by the statutory authorities. In this case it will be noticed that the two lower Courts disallowed the benefit, and the Umpire reversed their decision and granted it. In the further case, after new terms were offered, test cases have been taken and
the matter is now under consideration by the statutory authorities. That is as far as that case can be carried at the present moment. Now, to intervene in a trade dispute is, as I said earlier to-day, quite a different matter, and is one in which anyone who has responsibility has always got very carefully to consider how far he can do it with advantage, granted he wishes to act with complete fairness by all parties. In the case of industrial relations in the coal-mining industry, I have already pointed out that it is a matter, strictly speaking, for the Secretary for Mines, and not for me, as distinct from disputes in other industries. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me. We will consider how far it is right and proper to take action and whether we can help in this matter or not. But, further than that, I am quite sure the House would not wish me to go this afternoon.

Mr. MARDY-JONES: In view of the very careful statement the Minister has made, which we accept as an accurate statement of the actual position, may I ask, does it not now convey to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) that he had come to a rather hasty conclusion? Is it not evident, in view of the statement just made by the Minister that the case is sub judice? Is it not a fact that the decision of the insurance officer may or may not be reversed by the court of referees? Is it not a further fact that, even if the court of referees uphold this decision of the insurance officer, these men through their organisation have still a further appeal to the Umpire, and is it not possible again that the Umpire may reverse the decssion of the court of referees? In view of this fact, is it fair to insinuate that the men involved in this case should be charged with not being prepared to work?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going back to the incident of yesterday. He had better leave that alone to-day.

Mr. JONES: On that ruling, is it not a fact that the whole of the matter we are now discussing has arisen out of the question of yesterday, and is it not necessary as a matter of high public policy— [Interruption.]—I can assure the House there is a great deal—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to have a debate on high policy.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to put a supplementary question. I have to apologise to the Minister of Labour for putting it, because my information only reached me at 1.30 to-day, and my note may not have reached him yet.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) rose to put a supplementary question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. If my hon. Friend has a new question, may I put a supplementary question on the old one?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must have one question at a time. If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs wishes to put a supplementary question, he can do so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to put a supplementary question,

Mr. H0PKINSON: As hon. Members opposite are quarrelling, may I put my supplementary question?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My supplementary question is, whether the iron foundry labourers at Kirkintilloch—

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that the hon. Member's supplementary question has nothing to do with the main question.

Mr. H0PKINS0N: Arising out of the reply of the Minister of Labour, I desire to know whether the decision of the Umpire was given on the ground that there was a contravention of the law in one of the conditions offered, that the offending condition was cancelled by the owners of the colliery on 25th January, that the members of the Miners' Federation in that district had never been informed of that by their leaders, and that, therefore, they are refraining from work under a misapprehension and are likely subsequently to be deprived of unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On the information given to me, it is quite true the whole of the first case put before the Umpire, in which ultimately he allowed the benefit, turns on a breach of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. As I have just stated in my answer the colliery sub-
sequently offered new terms of employment on 25th January, 1929, but as to how far those terms were or were not made known to any member of the association, I have no information at all.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, take steps to make this known to these unfortunate men, so that they may no longer be deprived of the work which they wish to obtain, and which they are prevented from obtaining by the South Wales Miners' Federation?

Mr. EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms offered which he read out contain no piece-work rates whatsoever, nor do they, as far as we know, make any alteration in the present piece rates, and that the minimum rates depend upon earnings on piece-work? So far there has been no mention whatsoever of these piece-rates or any alteration. I would like to ask, further, whether the Employment Exchange is now engaged in trying to get men to work behind the back of the Miners' Federation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the actual conditions of the new terms offered, I have not got any detailed information. I was not able to get any in the time nor, indeed, for this purpose was it material, because whether they are suitable terms for the purposes of benefit or not is precisely the point which will have to come before the Umpire, as was the case in the previous instance, in which he gave his decision contrary to the Court of Referees.

Mr. EDWARDS: There are no terms.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If there are no terms, then that will be one of the points which, I have not the least doubt, the Court of Referees and the Umpire will have before them as a basis on which to make their decision.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I now ask the question you, Mr. Speaker, said I could ask? Does the Minister of Labour realise that his answer will confuse people who are engaged outside the coalfields in raising funds for miners' relief, and can he say definitely whether it was the fault of the men themselves that they are not working in this pit? That is what the ordinary charitable person wants to know.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot do anything of the kind. The hon. Member referred to a question yesterday which, apparently, was not answered. I, myself, was not present at the time yesterday, and I know nothing except from hearsay about what occurred here. On the other hand, as far as this case is concerned, my responsibility primarily deals with the unemployment benefit question, with regard to which, I think, as it stands at this moment, every Member of this House is satisfied. It would be, I think, grossly wrong of me to attempt to weigh up the merits in this particular case as between employers and employed, and I do not think that I am in a position to do so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are you not aware of the propaganda that is going on against the miners?

Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask whether there is any evidence at all that in South Wales there is a body of men out of work who are not willing to work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have got no evidence of the kind. Such evidence as there is comes up and is laid before the Court when the question of unemployment benefit arises.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that no allegation has ever been made against the men, that they wish to work, and the allegation is that the officials of the South Wales Miners' Federation have dissuaded them from accepting work?

Mr. SUTTON: That is peace in industry! Peace in industry, on starvation wages!

Mr. PARKINSON: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to honour the statement which he made in the House yesterday, that a full statement of the circumstances operating at the Nine Mile Point Colliery should be given to the House to-day?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): A statement has been made by the Minister responsible, and I am sure that if anyone reads that statement and studies it they will be able to draw their own conclusions.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour has, I think, given all the informa-
tion that he has in the Department for which he is responsible. If hon. Members desire to ask further questions, they had better put them upon. the Order Paper.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On a point of Order, I desire to ask your ruling. Yesterday, I put a supplementary question, and afterwards I explained that I meant no insult of any kind to the miners. Certain expressions were, however, used which you did not hear, expressions which have always up to now been considered as unparliamentary expressions. In view of my statement that I had no intention whatever to insult in any way the miners, I hope that the hon. Members will see their way to withdraw those expressions.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw your question!

Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. and gallant Member says may be quite true. I did not hear the actual expressions to which he refers, which are published in the newspapers; otherwise, I should have taken more notice of them. I think this incident had Better close.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On a point of Order. I would ask your ruling whether something could no;; be done and whether the hon. Members, in view of the fact that I said that there was no insult whatever meant to the miners in the supplementary question, will withdraw their statements?

Mr. PARKINSON: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether either he or his Department are actively engaged in recruiting or trying to recruit labour from other districts for these mines?

Mr. SPEAKER: Time must be given to the right hon. Gentleman to answer these questions. Dealing with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), I am sorry to say that regrettable expressions are used in this House very often in the heat of the moment, and I am sure that hon. Members who have been guilty of saying them, regret them afterwards, and will withdraw them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That applies to both sides of the House.

Mr. BARR: As we have an assurance from the hon. and gallant Member that he meant no insult, but inasmuch as the supplementary question had the effect of the feelings of this side of tending in that direction, cannot he see his way to ease the whole situation by withdrawing any insinuation of that kind and expressing regret for any adverse effect that the supplementary question may have made?

Mr. PARKINSON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Other questions on this matter must be put on the Order Paper.

IRON FOUNDRY LABOURERS, KIRKINTILLOCH (INSURANCE BENEFIT).

Captain GARRO JONES: I beg to ask leave to move the, Adjournment of the House—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I was led to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow me to put my question to the Minister of Labour—"whether he is aware that the iron foundry labourers at Kirkintilloch have been for the last three weeks awaiting payment of unemployment benefit, and what is the cause of the delay?" It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to reply forthwith. If he cannot give the information required, now, and I put a question down for tomorrow or Friday, will he then reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the Minister of Labour is not here now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is within the knowledge of the House and it was in your hearing that, earlier, I got far enough in my supplementary question to indicate its object. I stated my question in the best Parliamentary language possible. I apologised to the Minister of Labour for putting it, and now that the question is put, he has deliberately vacated the situation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think there is some misunderstanding about the hon. Member's question. I thought that he was going to put a supplementary question on the matter then before the House. Obviously, the question which he began to put had nothing to do with the subject then before the House. I have received
no notice that he wished to put a question on a different subject. No doubt, if the hon. Member puts his question upon the Order Paper, he will receive an answer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Since you rose to address the House, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has returned and is now in his place. With your kind permission, I will put the question to him now: "Whether he is aware that the iron foundry labourers at Kirkintilloch have been for the past three weeks awaiting payment of unemployed benefit, and what is the cause of the delay?"

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I gather, from explanations which have been made to me, that this question was the subject of a note which the hon. Member has sent to me. I have not received that note; otherwise I should have been perfectly willing to do my best to answer the question. It is about Kirkintilloch?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put a question upon the Order Paper, I will get the information. As I have not received his letter, I am unable to answer him at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Prime Minister announce the business for Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take the Local Government (Scottish) Bill, 5th Allotted Day, and other Orders if there is time.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the Prime Minister realise- the peculiar position in which the Scottish Members stand, seeing that they have to travel long distances to their homes and constituencies, and that Friday is not a congenial day for the discussion of the Local Government (Scot-land) Bill? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the representations which I understand have been made to him, with a view to relieving the Scottish Members of discussion of the Bill on Friday.

The PRIME MINISTER: There is bound to be a certain amount of inconvenience of that kind, but I would remind the hon. Member that we are not taking the Scottish business on Monday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That the following Member, representing a Scottish constituency, is appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee: Mr. Clarke.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 5th February..]

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Reconstitution of county councils.)

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, to leave out the word "representing," and to insert instead thereof the words "elected for."
I cannot hope to introduce into these proceedings the excitement which characterised the Question period. I am afraid that the subject matter of our discussion is much too prosaic for that, but it is none the less substantial and important. Of all the changes in local government that are contemplated in this Measure, the proposal of this Clause is by far the most revolutionary. There is a proposal here which infringes upon the principle of popular election in Scotland. It is therefore anti-democratic in its nature, and it has the still further defect that in the circumstances it is quite unnecessary. We have seen in the past two days very drastic changes effected, so far as the passage of legislation is concerned with local government machinery in Scotland. We have abolished the parish councils; we have transferred the education authorities to the county councils; and we have deprived the smaller burghs and some of the larger burghs of many of their existing functions. Now it is proposed to deprive the electors in certain burghs of Scotland of their right to determine who their representatives shall be on the county council.
I think it will suit the convenience of the Committee if I explain briefly what the intention of the Government is. The reconstituted county councils are to be composed of members elected from the landward areas and their members appointed by the town councils, and then, as I see the matter, the county councils are to be administrative bodies not only for the county but for the small burghs
in respect of certain functions, for, as is well known, the first Schedule of the Bill provides for the transfer of many of the existing functions of the small burghs to the county councils. But it is not administrative alone. Administration carries with it the right to rate. It is therefore both administrative and rating in its functions and operations. The members who are to be appointed by the town councils are presumably to represent the views of the electors in the small burghs, but I submit that they can only be an indirect form of representation, and it will therefore be clearly inadequate for the purpose.
I submit that none of the usual reasons that have been advanced in support of the main provisions of this Bill can be adduced in this connection. In our preceding Debates we had a speech from the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir B. Borne), who advanced the somewhat peculiar proposition that a change in local government was desirable, particularly in respect of the educational functions transferred to the county councils, because of the existing apathy in parish council, county council and education authority elections in Scotland. I do not propose to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of his proposition. There may be apathy in respect of these elections in Scotland, but it cannot be contended that apathy exists in respect of burgh elections in Scotland. It will be admitted by those who understand the situation that in all burgh elections, at all events in recent years. there has been, in fact, a, considerable measure of interest, and I think that the percentage of electors voting in burgh elections is very high. Therefore that argument cannot be advanced in this connection.
Nor can it be urged that the need for de-rating requires this anti-democratic change in the method of elections of county councils. De-rating, whatever its merits may be—we cannot discuss its merits now—has nothing whatever to do with the proposal embodied in this Clause. De-rating is possible without this change. Therefore the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot urge that derating cannot be applied without this modification in the electoral system in relation to councty council representation. Further, it cannot be argued that coordination in respect of local government
in Scotland cannot be effected without this change. It has been argued in the preceding Debates that co-ordination in local government is desirable. I think there is general agreement on that point, at all events in principle. But coordination in local government can be brought about without depriving the electors in small burghs of their undoubted right to decide who their representative on the county council shall be. Therefore that argument will not hold water.
Nor can it be said that the need for efficiency makes it essential to bring about this change. Efficiency is possible without this proposal being applied. Equally, it cannot be urged that the need for economy in administration requires this very drastic transformation of the electoral system. Therefore I urge that none of the arguments that have been adduced, properly or otherwise, in respect of the preceding provisions which have been accepted by the majority of the Committee apply in this case. It is undoubtedly an entirely novel principle, it is an innovation that is not desired, and certainly it is not necessary for the purpose that the Government have in view. In effect, it means taxation without popular control.
What the right hon. Gentleman proposes, in effect, is to say to the electors within the small burghs, "You are to be represented on the county council, but you are not to say who your representative shall be. You are to be rated by the county council, but you are to have no voice in respect of the amount of rates or the burden of rates or the incidence of rates." Clearly that is an anomaly and is unjustified. I have searched the speeches of the giants in our political history over a long period of years, and I cannot find in any of their writings or utterances any indication of a belief in the impropriety of popular control. It seems to me that political history not advancing any support in this direction, and the Members of the Government not having urged that this is essential for their express purpose, no case can be made out for it.
I would direct the attention of the Committee to another anomaly. The electors outside the burghs, although quite contiguous to the burghs, as they
must be, have the right to decide who their representatives on the county council should be, but just across the frontier, a few minutes walk away, a few yards away, the electors, although governed in a large measure by the same council and the same representatives, are not to decide who their representatives should be. All that they can do is to appoint, at the ordinary burgh election, members of the town council, and leave the town council to determine what their representation should be on the county-council. I challenge the Members of the Government to show that anything exists in our electoral methods, either in England or in Scotland, which is at all analagous to this proposed system. So far as I know there is nothing.
It constitutes, moreover, an attack on democracy in Scotland. It perverts the principle that has been operating for a very long time, that has worked quite well and has not interfered with efficiency or economy; and in all the circumstances I say that the Secretary of State should grant a concession to the Committee by withdrawing the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has had a good deal of his own way. He has seen the parish council disappear, the education authority transferred, and the burghs deprived of many of their functions. These things should content him. I hope he will see his way to grant this concession because of the very strong opposition that has been displayed towards it among the electors in the Scottish burghs.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): This proposal was dealt with on the Second Reading. I ask the Committee to approach it from the point of view as to which of the two suggested methods will produce the greater cooperation and efficiency in the carrying out of this great service, not only in the county but in the burgh as well. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was somewhat in error when he described it as a novelty, because the method which we are adopting has been in operation for 40 years past with the existing county councils. The fact is that as regards the existing county councils at present, just as for certain purposes under this Bill, a large number of burghs, Parliamentary, Royal and police, are represented upon the county council. As regards the
representation of those burghs on the county council, both methods are in a operation. That is to say, as regards the police burghs, which are burghs mostly below a certain limit—I need not enter into details of the limit—they form electoral divisions of the county areas, and their representatives are directly elected on to the county council. As regards the Parliamentary and Royal burghs, they are represented just exactly as we propose here, by representatives nominated by the town councils of those respective burghs. That is done under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1889.
Therefore, we come to this matter finding both systems in operation as regards the representation of the burghs, and it really becomes a business question, a question of what is going to work best and to get the greatest efficiency and economy, and above all the greatest harmony between these burghs and the complete county council. As in many subjects like that, there are arguments both ways, but on consideration of those arguments I invite the Committee to come clearly to the conclusion that the method which we have adopted in the Bill is the wise one to adopt. Why do I say that? I want, first of all, to reinforce the opinion I have been expressing on behalf of the Government with the report of the Consultative Councils, which has been referred to more than once in the course of these Debates. In paragraph 26 of the Report of what is familiarly known as the Munro Committee, hon. Members will find this:
The question whether the burgh representatives should be elected directly by the ratepayers or should he appointed by the town councils requires consideration. There is some force in the claim that in a matter of such importance as the public health, the electors should be directly represented on the health authority. If this were given effect to in the scheme, however, it would necessitate yet another public election in the smaller burghs. The apathy of the ratepayers in electing representatives to local public bodies is a matter of frequent comment; it is due, in part at least, to the fact that too many bodies require to he elected. For this reason it would not he desirable to add another election. There is another factor of importance. While town councils probably would object to the transfer of their health functions to a new authority or an existing authority on which they had no representation, the grounds of their objection to parting with their functions would he largely removed if for those functions the town councils themselves
appointed the burgh representatives on the local health authority. The representation of the burghs on the county council"—
—it deals with the population basis, and so on. Then they recommend the system which we have adopted, that is the system in use in the case of Parliamentary and Royal burghs, as the wisest one to adopt.
I should like to develop some of those reasons. A very important reason is what I may call the liaison reason. Consider that some matter in which the burgh is interested is being considered by the county council. It would be of the greatest possible value that under the system which we propose the town council should have among its members, members whom they have nominated to the county council, who would be in a position to report at any time any conclusion or con sideration which the county council was giving to that very matter. There is another illustration of that which is also of importance. As the Committee knows, there is power under the Bill to appoint among others the small burghs as the agents of the county council for carrying out some of the work which lies within the particular small burgh. If the system suggested by the Amendment is adopted, then the burgh and the town council, being the agents of the county council, would find that none of their members will be on the county council, and I conceive that where a burgh is the agent of the county council, carrying out a particular body of work, it will be valuable that some of the members of the agent body should also be members of the county council employing them. This really is a business question. Everyone recognises the cardinal principle about no taxation without representation and direct representation, but after all this is not very far removed from direct representation. One assumes that the electors of a burgh are not likely to put people on to their town council whom they would consider to be unfitted to go on to the county council. One is entitled to assume that they have sufficient confidence in their representatives—

Mr. STEPHEN: It all depends on the party which sends the individuals.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, there are several elements in regard to that, although they may be divided, possibly, into different areas.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are the issues not entirely different in the election of members of the town council and of the county council?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I should think that they were absolutely identical because these members, whether elected directly or nominated by the town council, are only allowed a voice on the county council on matters, to put it generally, in which the burgh itself is interested. It does not follow that they must be interested in every matter which the county council is going to deal with. On consideration of the various reasons, the Government have come to the conclusion that this is the wisest method to choose in order to see that the area as a whole shall have the work done reasonably and effectively.

Mr. STEPHEN: Has the Lord Advocate not noticed that the county council may not have this power? There is an Amendment down to give those representatives of the burghs full power on the county councils. That is our position.

The LORD ADVOCATE: To make them members for all purposes?

Mr. STEPHEN: Yes.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If one is coming to that, it would be wiser to have the burghs in the county for all purposes.

Mr. SHINWELL: You might as well, for all the difference it will make. You have taken all the powers away.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That, again, is giving the representatives of the burghs power to control matters over which they have no financial responsibility and where they may have in some cases a majority actually to outvote the people who are to pay the piper. However, I will deal with the Amendment when it comes up. I do not see much likelihood, at any rate, of our asking the Committee to accept that Amendment. If it were accepted I agree that it might make some alteration, because I say, quite frankly, that this is a matter of balancing what is most advantageous to the great scheme which we want to see carried out by united areas. One knows quite well that there is a great deal of distrust, or suspicion, or what-
ever you may call it, between the counties and the burghs at present. I know that Members in all parts of the Committee are only too anxious to dissipate that feeling, and to show that they are united by a mutual interest. That is a final reason which I put forward as making our method the preferable one, because if the people going to the county council were directly elected the town council would have nothing to do with them, and would have no control over them or say in regard to them. I personally and on behalf of the Government unhesitatingly ask the Committee to come to the conclusion that the Government's course is the wiser one in the circumstances.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I really cannot follow the arguments of the Lord Advocate. I do not see how the proposals in the Bill arc going to work for peace as between the burghs and the county councils, nor do I follow his argument in thinking that there will be any difficulty at all between the elected members to the county council in the burgh and the method that is going to be adopted of the county council appointing the members themselves. One of the Lord Advocate's arguments was with regard to a liaison. Well, what of that? The very same members are very often elected on the county council and are in the very closest contact, but our chief opposition to the Bill is that it brings in a new idea instead of the. liaison,. I am talking at the moment about the smaller burghs, and this is a new idea there. It may have obtained in the Royal and Parliamentary burghs, but it did not obtain in the Police burghs. They appointed their own men collectively. Our point is that we think, nay, we are persuaded, that the democratic principle ought to obtain still, and that the members should go to the county council elected by the people who send them, and that the power of the electors in the burghs will be itself the strongest power of all. That power is that if an elected member does not do his duty as the burgh wants him to do it, then the electors, when the election comes, can dismiss him altogether, and appoint a man to do the work which he is sent to do. Surely that is a principle to which the Lord Advocate will not take any exception. If the members do not do the work they will not be appointed again.
Our real objection to the whole thing is that we want democratic election, and we do not think it is a wise thing to introduce into any local body the idea that members are to go to work on any bigger body without the electors of the district having a. full voice as to whom they shall send. I need not elaborate the argument which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has put as plainly as it can be put. The arguments of the Lord Advocate have no strength with me whatever. We still believe that the right and democratic thing to do, and the thing which is most wanted to be done, is to give the electors a full voice in the election of every person who goes to represent them on any body whatever.

Lieut-Colonel MOORE: Although the Amendment which stands in my name—
In page 9, line 37, after the word "burghs," to insert the words
(with the exception of the burghs of Prestwick, Troon, Irvine, Saltcoats, and Ardrossan, which are exemuted from the provisions of this Section)"—
has not yet been reached, I understand that I may address the few representations I have to make to the Committee on the Amendment now under discussion. The attitude adopted by the town councils and the burghs, which are mentioned in my Amendment, is that they do not want to go into the county authority at all, and that therefore they would not wish to send any delegates or representatives to the county council. My Amendment was put down not in any spirit of disagreement with the provisions of this Measure, and not in any antagonism to the policy adopted by the Government.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing his own Amendment at this point?

The CHAIRMAN: I really have not quite followed the hon. and gallant Member's argument sufficiently. I gather that he desires the word "representing" taken out, because he does not want any representation on the county council of these burghs. Of course, he would not be in order in arguing that they should be full authorities under a former Clause, because that question would have been settled. If, however, he wants to say that they will not come in under the
county council, that is quite a different thing, and I think he would be in order in raising that question.

Lieut-Colonel MOORE: The point I was trying to bring out was that the town councils of the burghs to which I refer in my Amendment do not want to send representatives to the county authority. The reason for that is that they want to remain outside the scope of the new authority altogether.

5.0 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is discussing on this Clause what has actually been decided on Clause 3. I think his better course would be to await the Report stage.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept your ruling, Mr. Hope, of course, and I trust that you will give me an opportunity of dealing with the matter on the Report stage.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to support this official Labour Amendment. I think that what we are saying here to-day, and the part that is being played by the Government, are proof of the oft-quoted phrase, "Extremes meat." Here to-day we have the exhibition of a Tory Government in Britain acting in exactly the same way as the Communists have acted in Russia. This is a Soviet, and hon. Members could have had no nearer approach to Lenin, speaking in Turkestan, than the speech of the Lord Advocate when he stood at the Treasury Box today justifying this idea of doing away with democratic government in this country. We Socialists pride ourselves on the fact that this is the most democratic country in the world, and here we have evidence again to-day that the Tories, those who are in control, are busy using all their powers to undermine our democratic institutions. I notice in the White Paper, Command 3263, that there is something which may be a bribe held out to my constituency. Whether or not it is a bribe I cannot tell, but it is evident that the terms are very favourable, as far as my constituency is concerned, because I find on page 13:


DUMBARTON.


Representatives of:



Landward Electoral Divisions
34


Large Burghs
39


Small Burghs
17


Now that means that my two burghs, Dumbarton and Clydebank, will have a majority here, but it is not my constituents that will send those representatives; it will be the town councils of Dumbarton and Clydebank. If it were left to Clydebank I might not have very much to quarrel about, because Clydebank would send Socialists, but Dumbarton, which is hoary with age and encrusted with tradition, would send Tories. No doubt the Government have fears about this question. All this reorganisation is not being done for anything right. The Government are not taking the risk of getting out of power for nothing. It is because they know quite well that Labour is getting stronger in the country as the days go by, that the Government are using all the methods at their disposal to put every possible barrier in the way of progress, so that when Labour does come into power it will have greater difficulties to contend with than it had to surmount last time. They got the fright of their lives in 1924, so they are spending all their energies—such as they have; they have very little left—in order to safeguard their own awful position. There never was so much poverty in our country as there is to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting far away from the question of electoral representation.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know quite well that you are awaiting an opportunity. [Interruption.]The point I am trying to make under considerable difficulties, caused by individuals who never rise to do anything themselves, is this: Here is another attempt to try to curtail the activities of working folk who wish to get into our institutions—our Governmental institutions and our administrative institutions. It is now no uncommon thing for an ordinary working man to get either into this legislative assembly or into our administrative bodies in the country. That was not always the case. When it now comes to an election the working classes are sending Socialists to represent them, and I hold that this is a direct attack on the working classes. It is a direct attack on our personal liberties as Scotsmen. It is a direct attack on the great majority. It is a direct attack on the poor on the part of
the rich, because it is the rich who are able, on the average, to afford the time to get on to these administrative bodies. But the working classes when they get their opportunity at election time will elect their own representatives. Under this Bill, however, instead of getting their elected representatives, we are going to have individuals appointed who will represent a certain clique.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will look at the Bill, I think he will find that there is some misunderstanding on his part, because these people who will go from the town councils to the county councils must be chosen from their own number. They must be town councillors. It is not a question of the town councils appointing whom they choose, but it is provided that these people must be elected from the town council of the burgh in question. They must be elected from among their own number.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is exactly the point I am making. I want people to have the right to elect their own representatives. I take myself as a clear example, a good example. If it had been left to an elected body to elect me and send me here, I never would have been here. Evidence of that is here on every hand. I know what they would have done for me if they had had the chance and power. If our folks had the hardihood to elect men like me, we want them to have the same right and power, however disagreeable it may be to those who are in authority, to elect men like me if they wish, and to have the same right to elect members to this newly-formed body; not for it to be left to those who are in control at the moment, whether they be on the town council or otherwise. People on the town council have always been the "high heid yins" of the town. We have boasted on the continent of Europe that ours is the most democratic country in the world, and here you have the present Government—the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible—-at the dictates of the man from Birmingham, selling the birthright of Scottish electors. That is what it means, and we want to protest against it as emphatically as we can, and we will go into the Division Lobby against it.

Mr. SKELTON: I want to say a word or two only upon this method of election or selection which is embodied in this Clause. I should like to say at the outset that I do not understand the real views that hon. Members opposite have of our town councils in Scotland, because they seem to me to talk about these bodies with two totally different voices.

Mr. SHINWELL: What do you know about it? You have never been on a town council.

Mr. SKELTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will try to be civil if he can. If hon. Members were to consider it possible or reasonable that any hon. Member speaking on a particular subject should have had everyday direct relations with that subject, debates in this House would come almost to an end. The hon. Gentleman's interruption has absolutely no relevance, like so many of his interruptions. I was saying that, in listening to this Debate, it appeared to me that hon. Members opposite were speaking of these bodies with two voices. When the question of taking powers away from the town councils and giving them to the newly-constituted county councils was discussed, the town council was held up as the most democratic body with an immensely long history, and with great democratic traditions—the repository of the democratic feeling of Scotland. That is one view of the town council; but as soon as my right hon. Friend proposes, in this Bill, that members of this democratic body should join the county council, we are told that the town councils only represent the "high heid yins."

Mr. KIRKW00D: I did not say that they only represented the "high heid yins." I sad they were themselves the "high heid yins."

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member says that the members themselves are the "high heid yins." In short, when it becomes a question of putting members of town councils on to the newly constituted county council, hon. Gentlemen opposite entirely give up their view that the town council is a democratically elected body. Both the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) amazed me by describing as undemocratic and as a step against demo-
cratic principles the proposal that members of town councils, themselves democratically elected, should be put on the county council. For my part, I cannot see how a member of a town council, democratically elected by the electors of a town or burgh, will lose his democratic quality when selected by the town council to represent them on the county council. I do not follow that line of argument. I think there is some real difference of view on this matter. I do not think the Opposition are merely trying to be obstructive. I think they have a different constitutional view on the subject from that which I am trying to express. I am merely pointing out that, having considered this question as the representative of a number of these bodies —though never having sat on a town council myself—I cannot understand how town councillors, democratically elected, can be regarded as too undemocratic themselves to sit upon a county council.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I put what is the real point at issue? Are these members of town councils elected for town council purposes or for county council purposes? That, is the issue.

Mr. SKELTON: That is a very fair question, and I will do my best to reply to it. The hon. Gentleman seeks to place me in the dilemma that a person elected to serve on a town council is unsuitable to be put on a county council.

Mr. SHINWELL: Not that he is not suitable. He is not elected. That is the point.

Mr. SKELTON: Then shall I say that the hon. Member's point is that such a person is not necessarily the type of person that one would like to see on the county council?

Mr. SHINWELL: No, that is not my point. It is not that he may not be a suitable person. He may be quite competent to act on a county council. The point is that he has not been democratically elected for the county council.

Mr. SKELTON: That then is the exact point—that he has not been elected democratically for the county council. But what substance is there in that point? In future, at the town council elections, it will be known that a certain number of the town councillors elected may be sent on to the county council. The electors
when they return men to the town council will know that they are electing those men possibly for the county council and, in that event, surely the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said is reduced to a minimum. It is to be recollected also that the purposes for which they will sit in the county council are only purposes directly connected with the town. Therefore, there is no dilemma such as the hon. Member has suggested. I agree that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) did not put it in that way, but the possibility of such a dilemma has been in the minds of speakers on the opposite side. The question of "all right for the town but no use for the county" cannot arise. These men are democratically elected, and, in future, the electors will know that their representative may have to fulfil wider functions and sit on the county council.
If we consider the matter seriously I cannot see what undemocratic quality exists in this proposal. In my judgment the Government have done well to adopt this method. If we look at the scheme of the Bill impartially we shall see that one of its main objects is to get the closest possible relation between the landward districts and the burghs. The administration of the burghs is concentrated in the town councils. Surely it is creating a link between the burgh and the county to secure that members representing the burgh who sit on the county council shall also be persons who are entitled to sit on the town council. A great part of the results which I hope to see flow from this Bill, would be lost if we had as burghal representatives on the county council people who had no right to penetrate into the town council. If hon. Members opposite look at the matter from a practical point of view, and assume for a moment that one of our objects is to unite the whole locality as closely as possible for administrative purposes, they will agree that this provision is essential and that it would destroy one of the main objects of the Bill to leave no link between the county council and the town council. Had it been possible to say with truth that the method proposed is undemocratic, a very grave question would have arisen, but that cannot be said. It is an untenable proposition that "Mr. A" elected to the
town council as a democratic representative should, when he steps over the way to the county council, cease to be a democratic representative. That is not common sense and is not constitutional sense. For my part I congratulate the Government upon this proposal. It is essential to one of the main objects of their scheme, which is as I have said, the linking up of the landward and burgh districts in one area so that the representatives thereof may form what, in reality, will be a local parliament in the future.

Sir R. HAMILTON: As a general principle, I am not much in favour of electoral colleges and I do not think the House of Commons is in favour of them, but the circumstances here are somewhat peculiar. We are continuing what has been the procedure for the last 40 years. We are actually taking the same method of election as that contained in the County Councils Act, 1889, and it is a matter for consideration whether it is desirable to multiply elections. Under this proposal the electors are to return town councillors who shall select from among their number certain members to represent that body on the county council. Having regard to that fact, I am not able to pile up democratic arguments about the method of election, because I do not think the ground for such argument exists. But there is a point which I should like to put to the Secretary of State. Hitherto, some of the police burghs elected representatives to the county council directly. Under this proposal, I take it, they are to select representatives from their own councillors in the same manner as other burghs. In the case of a very small police burgh which returns only one or two members, how are they to select from among their members those to represent them on the county council? I am not able to quote exact figures but I think there are police burghs which return only one or two members. Turning to the provisional scheme in the White Paper it will be seen that Stromness, under the new scheme, would have three councillors on the county council. I do not think Stromness would return three members to the county council at the present time and I should like to have a little light upon that point.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOT-LAND (Sir John Gilmour): Our proposal is to make the system the same in all burghs. The eases given in the White Paper are purely tentative suggestions set out for discussion and probably will have to be fully discussed in coming to a decision regarding the actual number in specific cases.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulty that may arise in connection with the point I have just put as to small police burghs which only return one or two members and which will now have to select who is to represent them on the county council?

Captain STREATFEILD: The Amendment raises most important issues. There is a differentiation between representation and election and I should like to know what is going to be the status of the burgh representation on county councils. My constituency consists of a large number of small burghs and they, very rightly, want to know how they are going to stand under this proposal. The county council is going to be the rating authority. It will levy the rates, to which the ratepayers in the burghs will have to contribute, and, of course, it is only fair and right that those burgh ratepayers should be assured that the power of representation on the county council which they will enjoy will be adequate for all questions of finance.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member's argument would come in better on the later Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland which proposes to leave out Sub-section (3) and insert new Sub-sections. We are on rather a narrow point now as to direct or indirect representation, but I understand the hon. and gallant Member to raise a question as to the number of county councillors and the apportionment of that number between the burghs and the landward areas of the county.

Captain STREATFEILD: The question I want to raise is one of the formula upon which this representation will be made.

The CHAIRMAN: Clearly that will come later, on the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is quite a different question from the
smaller question of direct or indirect representation.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. If the principle which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accept, of indirect representation, is accepted, surely it follows that all the details are consequential and there is no point in discussing them at all.

The CHAIRMAN: The question of how many representatives the burghs should have on the county council is one question, and how they shall get there is another; and it is that, and that alone, which we are row discussing.

Captain STREATFEILD: If I am not in order, may I ask for your assurance, Mr. Hope, that I shall be able to raise these points when the Amendment of my right hon. Friend comes forward?

The CHAIRMAN: That is the proper place to raise them, but it would be extremely rash for anybody in the Chair to give a promise to any Member that he will be called.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: I was not at all impressed by. the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), nor was I much impressed by the reply from the Lord Advocate with regard to this point. I think there is a very good case for the Amendment which has been moved, and after 12 years' experience on a county council, I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to leave the present system alone. The Lord Advocate explained that at present there are two systems of electing members to the county council from burghs. There is the system whereby the Royal and Parliamentary burghs indirectly send representatives to the county council, whereas the smaller burgh has power directly to elect representatives to the county council; and if the Secretary of State for Scotland was prepared to leave that system alone, we should be satisfied.
We are quite prepared to accept the present system, but I want to assure the Lord Advocate that I have known cases where a man has been nominated by a town council to a county council in a small burgh, and an elector in that burgh has been nominated also as a candidate for representation on the county council, and the result of an election has been,
as between the man nominated by the town council and the man nominated outside the town council, the election of the man outside. [Interruption.] I can assure the Lord Advocate that we have had elections of that kind. I have not been the candidate, but I have taken part in such elections, where we have had a ratepayer outside the town council nominated for a seat on the county council and elected in the face of the opposition of the nominee of the town council. That has taken place, and I think that is a very good check on cliques inside a town council selecting certain individuals for representation on the county council.
After all, the men who are to represent the burghs on the county council now are men who do not require to report to the town council certain things. For example, the man who is representing the burgh on the county council will have to deal with education. He will be expected to look after the interest of education in his burgh, and to look after roads and other matters that have been transferred from the town council or from the education authority or from the parish council to the county council, and I submit that the matters with which the county council will be dealing are matters with which the burgh has little or no concern, because these matters have already been taken out of the hands of the burgh or of the education authority or of the parish council, so that the men who are to represent burghs on the county council under this scheme need not have any direct connection with the town council. So long as they are selected by the ratepayers in a burgh as their representatives on the county council, that should be entirely satisfactory.
As far as I am concerned, I would not object to Parliamentary burghs or the large burghs that are over the 20,000 limit having their representatives selected by the town council. I quite agree that in their case the matter with which they would deal on the county council is so very small that there is no reason why they should represent the town council. In their case, all that they would be required to deal with on the county council is the question of education. They will simply go on the county
education committee. But for burghs under the 20,000 standard, I think that liberty should be given to the ratepayers in these burghs to select their own representatives on the county council. because, as I have already said, the matters with which they would be dealing on the county council are matters in which the town council is not directly-interested. I hope this matter will be reconsidered by the Government. I quite agree that in most cases the representatives from the burghs to the county councils are representatives of the burgh council, but the ratepayers in these burghs have had the power to elect representatives to the county council up to-now directly, and I would prefer that that system was continued.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: We are somewhat at cross purposes, which is a very unusual thing in a Scottish Debate, because, as everybody knows, we are the most logical people on the face of the earth. At the moment I think we are arguing about different things. One perfectly well understands the argument in principle between election and delegation. We support, in the main, in this country the theory of election as against delegation. The United States of America is an example of delegation in its form of government to some extent, and the greatest example, the most extreme illustration in the world to-day, is, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said, the Soviet Government of Russia, which is a pyramid of delegation, where you start with an original body, which may be elected from districts of the country, and gradually you form a pyramid of selected bodies until you get to the apex. We, on the other hand, in this country, as I agree, are broad based upon the theory of election, and I, for one, do not for a moment dispute that election is the more advantageous method taken as a whole. But here we are dealing with something which does not involve, as I see it, that question of principle at all. We are arguing about the representation of burghs on the county council. What do these representatives do on the county council?

Mr. SHINWELL: May I correct. the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think the hon. Member can correct me, because I think I am right in what I said.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is not the representation from the burghs, but representation from the ratepayers in the burghs.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is, in my view, totally inaccurate on this matter, and if he will allow me to appeal to the reason of his colleagues, I think we shall more fittingly arrive at a conclusion on this matter. The question is, in fact, the representation of burghs on county councils. It is only burghal matters upon which these members will be entitled to vote on the county council. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) with regard to the principle of election if these people were coming from the burghs to vote upon all the matters upon which the members of the county council may vote.

Mr. J. BROWN: So they ought.

Sir R. HORNE: That may be—that is a different question—but if you take the premise, which is that upon which we are arguing—and we are Scotsmen arguing upon a premise, and we draw a conclusion according to—

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we have not yet decided what have to be the powers of these councils or of the burgh representatives?

Sir R. HORNE: But at least this is the major premise upon which the argument proceeds. The major premise of this syllogism is that the burghal representatives are only to deal on the county council with matters that concern the burgh. That is the foundation of the argument, and, accordingly, they are not being elected for general purposes at all; they are being elected simply to deal with those things upon which the burgh, amongst other parts of the county, will be required to pay rates. That being the origin of the argument, you immediately and entirely get rid of this controversy, as between election and delegation. Let us take what has happened, in my experience, very often, because I have acted on occasions as counsel, sometimes for a burgh, sometimes for a county, in matters in controversy between the burgh and the county. There have been questions of the pollution of rivers, questions about the extension of burghs, where the position of the burgh was in antagonism to that of the county, and it
was the duty of the burghal representatives, in many cases in the form of com-mittees, to meet committees of the county council to discuss these questions, but could anybody ever deny that a person elected as a member of a town council, because he was not specially elected upon these questions, was in a position, as a democratic representative, to discuss these questions which concerned mutually the burgh and the county?

Mr. SHINWELL: What about education?

Sir R. HORNE: That is one of the things upon which they are elected, one of the things that forms a topic of discussion. You have found these committees in innumerable cases meeting burghal committees on the one side and county council committees on the other, to discuss questions which mutually affect them. Accordingly, this is only putting in a stereotyped form what occurs in innumerable instances casually; that is to say, that the burghal representatives who are elected for burgh purposes are entitled on the county council to say what the burghal point of view is. Who is going to say that that person is not a proper democratic representative of the people who have elected him? Therefore, it does not involve the great issue of election and delegation which has been raised by some Members opposite.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why stop at county councils? Why not proceed in the same manner in the election of Members of Parliament?

Sir R. HORNE: That raises a general question of election and delegation. As my hon. Friend says, that is the Soviet method of electing their Government, but the people who are elected to deal with burghal local matters are not elected to deal with the State matters that are dealt with in Parliament, and are therefore incompetent to deal with them. In the ordinary burghal elections the very things with which Members are elected to deal are local matters, and only in connection with the local matters have they a voice on the county council. Therefore, they are representative of the electors as fat-as these local matters are concerned.
Suppose you have a different election entirely for the people of the burgh who have to go to the county council. It is true that these people are not allowed
to Vote on any question that does not involve a rate on the burgh, but suppose the people thus elected take a totally different view from that of the town council. What is going to happen then? Is it not far better, as a practical matter, to have people sent to the county council who are themselves town councillors and are fitted to express the view of the town council in those matters which appertain to the interest of the electors? If there were an elected body of represntatives, and they took a totally different view from the town council, the result would be confusion. I beg my colleagues in the Committee to look at it as a practical matter, and to consider whether as a business proposition the proposal in the Bill is not the best, because after all, in this matter, whatever we may be when it-comes to national controversy on other matters, we are all here as Scotsmen trying to get the best form of Government.

Mr. WESTWOOD: We have just heard the finest argument for leaving this matter to be decided by Scottish representatives instead of allowing it to be dominated by English representatives, but we have to appeal to the Committee as a whole and not merely to Scottish Members. The right hon. Gentleman has not. dealt with the vital question at issue. No one is complaining that the individual who is elected by the town council to go to the county council is not as democratic as the man who is directly elected. That is not the question; the question is the system of election of that individual. I have been a member of town councils, and my experience is that where they have to select an individual to do deputation work or carry through other work of the council, it was never a question of selecting the best individual but of selecting the individual who had the most time on his hands, and would cost the council the least sum of money in carrying on its work. Very often the council would send me as a lifelong abstainer, knowing that they would not have to stand drinks. There will be three types of representatives. First the landward area representatives who would have full voting powers in connection with Poor Law questions, with general administration, and with education. There is the second type of representa-
tive from the small burghs, who will have the right to deal only with questions which under this Bill arc not left to the small burghg.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The hon. Member realises that Poor Law is one of those things?

Mr. WESTWOOD: That is exactly what I said. With the exception of the matters which will by Statute have been left to the small burghs, the representatives from the small burghs will have full voting power. Then you come to the third type, the representatives of the large burghs who will have voting powers only on education. There we have the three different types of representative, and we are likely to be in a false position, particularly with regard to the large burghs. You can get the type of individual who can devote his time to administration in the burghs, where the meetings can be held in the evening, where no travelling is involved and where the members can give that conscientious attention to local administration which hundreds of our administrators in Scotland have given freely in the past, and are willing to give in the future; but you require the man of more time on the county side of administration, and if he is to be selected from the town council instead of elected by the electors in the area, it will be difficult to get the individual who is prepared to give the time.
With regards to the third type who will only have voting powers on education, you will get out of the difficulty which has been raised in regard to direct election, if you allow the people in the burghs, particularly the larger burghs, to have the right of selecting the individuals who are to serve on the county councils. I come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). I cannot understand why Member after Member on the other side should get up whenever we make suggestions which are honestly made—and I would not support any suggestion merely for the purpose of wasting time—

Sir R. HORNE: Our replies are honest, too, you know.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have never said that they were not, or suggested it. We are making suggestions honestly in the interests of more efficient administration, hopeful of helping in these
particular problems, and that is the reason I cannot understand Members from the other side—I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Home), because we know that he has never made any mistakes in the advice which he has given, even in the advice which he gave to the small burghs when he was fighting for them, or the advice which he gave to the county councils when he was fighting against the small burghs. The hon. Member for Perth said that if the Government gave way on this matter, it would mean the destruction of the fabric of the Bill.

Mr. SKELTON: What I said was that as the underlying object of the Bill was more closely to unite the landward and burghal areas, I thought it was a valuable element in the Bill that we should have the same people sitting m the town councils and the county councils.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The argument has so often been used that Amendments moved by this side would destroy the Bill and destroy unity in administration. I submit, however, that this Amendment will not destroy the Bill, for it does not touch the general structure. It merely sets out a different method of selecting or electing the individuals who are to work the machinery that is being set up. The whole issue is one between representatives from the burgh councils being selected, and representatives being directly elected by the ratepayers to deal with the specific subjects which are delegated to the county councils under this Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: We always listen with respect to the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), but to-night I think he has really made an error. I am not in love with the proposal in the Bill at all, because this idea of" in and out," of jumping from the town council to the county council, is one that cannot last. Still less would the proposal in the Amendment be acceptable, because it would mean you would have two kings in Brentford. The elected representatives and the town council would not agree, you would have to have two elections in the town, and the town would be like a house divided against itself. I do not
believe that the proposed arrangement can be permanent, and I believe that it is a preliminary to another that will come, namely, amalgamations of town and county councils. That would suit the circumstances of my constituency much better, and this proposal as it stands is a half-way house to it. I would like to see the town and county council of Duncon and Cowal, and the town and county council of Oban and Lorne; in such cases there would be a complete amalgamation which would be immensely more capable of efficient administration—

The CHAIRMAN: That question is rather outside the scope of this Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was balancing the claims of the Amendment and the proposal in the. Bill, and I say that the Amendment will postpone that happy day when we shall get the conditions in which it will be possible to have these amalgamations. This sub-division, this in-and-out arrangement, is bound to cause a good deal of friction. It is leading to this, that small places, one might say villages, have a larger number of representatives than some of the larger burghs.

The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Amendment. The only question with which we are dealing here is that of direct or indirect representation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not wish in any way to trench upon other matters, but this Bill is really like Joseph's coat —it has got so many colours that it is very difficult to avoid mixing up different points.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is a thing of shreds and patches.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The new system will certainly result in a great deal of confusion and a great deal of friction in the burghs, whereas under the other system it means that, at all events in regard to the questions of roads, health and the like, which are being transferred from the burghs to the county council, the burghs, which are deeply interested, will have the right to choose the representatives they send to look after their interests. It is all very well for the hon.
Member for Peebles to say that the men selected for the councils are usually those who have most time on their hands. I think that applies to all public business. The men who take any interest in public business are generally men who have leisure—or should have leisure. Occasionally we get men who ought to be attending to their own business taking up public life, and that generally ends in disaster for them. It is inevitable that you cannot always select the best, and that you have to be content with the second best. I feel that the electors in the towns have selected the best town councillors they can get, and that these will also make good county councillors when they sit on the county council to represent the town council.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to make a suggestion to the Government on this Amendment. The Lord Advocate made it quite plain that there was a good deal to be said on both sides. He took the line that it was a case of balancing the arguments on the two sides, and indicated that the Government themselves were not very much wedded to the one rather than to the other, although it appeared to him that the balance of argument was in favour of the indirect method of election. The suggestion I have to make is that the Government should leave this Amendment to a free vote of the Committee. Members from the various districts in Scotland who have been in touch with their constituents on this matter will in that way get an opportunity of trying to make the Bill a little more in line with what their constituents wish, and the necessity for that is evident from the fact that to-day some Members are suggesting that the Bill should apply to every burgh in Scotland except their own. If we find Members who last night voted to put in all the burghs now desiring that their own burghs should be out, surely the Government will see the reasonableness of giving a free vote on a matter like this, which is not material to the general framework of the Measure.
I wish to stress the argument which has been made by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). Let us assume that there are Labour councillors on a town council who are in employment and can give only a limited time to their duties as councillors. Such a man might be able to spare the time to carry through
the duties which fall to him as a town councillor, but if he were to have the duties pertaining to a county councillor added to them he would find it impossible to give the necessary time, and if he were nominated for election to the county council, although in other respects he might be the most suitable individual, he might have to waive the opportunity of going to the county council. We might quite well find, as a consequence of this indirect method of election, and the difficulty of finding sufficient time, that the preponderance of opinion in a burgh where the voters were in the main supporters of Labour could not be represented on the county council.
The question is one of making a county council as representative as possible of the opinion in the district. The argument against that is the argument that you must have a link with the town council. Looking at it from the point of view of the working class and the Labour voters in the county, I am quite convinced that the indirect method will militate greatly against those interests being represented in proportion to the volume of opinion in the district. Seeing that the Government are carrying through this Measure in the face of so much averse opinion in the districts, they ought at least to propitiate that opinion as much as possible. While I do not suggest that my argument has completely overturned the arguments on the other side, because I agree with the Lord Advocate that there is much to be said on each side, to my mind the preponderance of argument is with the Amendment. If the Secretary of State is not willing to go all the way, I think he, at least, might be prepared to allow a free Vote of the Committee on this matter, which is not. material to the general framework of the Measure.

Captain FANSHAWE: It has been pointed out that under the present system there are two different machines for dealing with the burghs of Scotland. One machine deals with the representation of the Royal and Parliamentary burghs on the county council, and the other deals with the representation of the police burghs on the county council. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) told us that our energy had evaporated, and at the same time said that he was in favour of the Amendment, and not, therefore, a supporter of the sort
of machinery which is set up and which is enjoyed at the present time by the Royal and Parliamentary burghs. If he has not been in favour of that machinery all this time, why has he not before now made representations against it in this House? Nobody can accuse him of any luck of energy at any time. I rather think he has left the whole question unstudied until the present time, when, of course, he wishes to bring strong opposition to bear against the proposals of the Government in this Bill.
The Amendment seeks to have a separately elected member from the small burghs to sit on the county council. May I remind the Committee that, after all, the town council of the small burgh will be, under this Bill, the rating authority in that burgh, and if we have a separately elected person who is not a member of the town council of the small burgh going to the county council we shall have somebody on the county council representing the ratepayers of that small burgh who is in no way responsible to those ratepayers for the levying of rates or the expenditure of their money. If, on the other hand, you elect to the county council a member of the rating authority, you have a man who, first of all, takes his part in the work of the small burgh and is concerned with the levying of the rates in connection with the statutory obligations which are left to the burgh, housing and so on, and later, on the county council, dealing with the rates levied in respect of the transferred services. In that case you would have on the county council members sitting there to do the work for which they are elected, and one of them following up the ratepayers' money to see that it is properly expended when it goes to another place, because the services which the county council will render to the small burgh are directly proportionate to the amount of money which the small burgh has sent to the county council. This is a point of view which, I believe, has not yet been represented to the Committee. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) referred once or twice to the ratepayers. If we are going to consider the ratepayers of the burgh as we should I think we must see that they would certainly like to have somebody whom they have elected as one of the members of their rating authority to follow their money on in order to see that it is dealt with properly by the county
council. That is one of the, reasons why I support this Clause—I do not want to go into the other reasons, which have already been put forward by my hon. Friends on this side—and why I do not support the Amendment.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: As one who is deeply interested in the question of the representation of the burghs on the county council, I wish to put this point. The representatives who will be elected by the town council are not equal with those elected by the county area.

Major ELLIOT: indicated dissent.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: The Under-Secretary says no. Then I would ask him this question. If the members are equal in the county areas, will they have full voting powers?

Major ELLIOT: Yes.

Mr. WESTWOOD: That means you are accepting our Amendment?

Major ELLIOT: No.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: The other point which has been raised by my people in the North is this: Will a member who is elected by a town council to the county authority be equal with the member from a county area in the election of a chairman? Would he be able to stand for election as chairman of the county council? If not, I can see the very greatest difficulties arising, with friction and misunderstanding, through these different people with different powers sitting on the same council. If I could be assured that they would have equal voting power and at the same time be eligible to be elected as chairman, then I should have no further objection.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask a question arising out of that? While they have equal voting powers, is it not the fact that the members of the burgh do not have any voting rights on matters which do not concern the burgh, and therefore that there is an area which is excluded from them, and that is the area of what are termed county affairs?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: If that be so, can they vote for the chairman?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The first question raised is one of voting power. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) that their voting power is equal, although their capacity to vole on certain subjects is excluded. [Interruption.] IT you mean by equal power of voting the power to vote on the same number of occasions, then I agree that it is unequal; but when they do vote, their voting power is equal; the vote of one man from the burgh is as good as the vote of one man from the county. Surely that is quite clear. The second question which has been put to me relates to the chairmanship. It is quite clear that every member of the council, whether he is the representative of a burgh or a county, is eligible for the chairmanship. It is equally clear that the question of the casting vote creates no difficulty because it is a statutory vote.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Up to the present time burgh representatives have been able to vote like other representatives, but the structure of this Measure alters the function as between the burgh and the county, and we are bringing within the purview of the county—

The LORD ADVOCATE: That question arises upon a later Amendment which deals directly with that point.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It has been said that under this Clause you are giving equal voting power. May I point out that where you have three different members in the county there may be three votes taken in which one man can vote three times, another man twice, and the third would only be entitled to vote once. In those circumstances, how will it be possible to have equal voting power?

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I would like some further explanation of the point we are discussing. I will take as an illustration the burgh of Lanark, which will be represented on the county council. The question dealt with by the Amendment is whether the burgh of Lanark shall send a representative to the county council or whether the people in the burgh of Lanark will be able to elect their representative. That is the point which arises on this Amendment, and it is an eminently democratic point. We want to give the electors the right to choose the person who is to represent
them on the county council or the burgh council. I quite appreciate the point that the functions of the representative of the burgh are limited as compared with the other members of the county council, but I cannot understand the opposition to this Amendment in view of the fact that practically all the small burghs lose their weight under this Bill, and most of their business in the future will be conducted as part of the work of the county council. I cannot see any reason for refusing to accept an Amendment which would make this question more representative and more democratic than it is at the present time. I do not wish to argue this point as a question of working-class or middle-class representation, but I think each burgh which has a right to representation on the county council should have the right to choose its representative, and that is the effect of this Amendment. It is obvious that there is more than a general agreement on this point even amongst hon. Members opposite, and for these reasons I hope the Government will accept our Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am sorry the Lord Advocate misunderstood my point. I did not intend arguing the case, but I suggest that you are now giving the county council a new range of functions which cannot be divided strictly as between burgh and county. You are arranging the distribution of these services in such a way that it will be difficult to draw a line of demarcation. I think there is great force in the argument that we should face the situation with a new system of election. The difficulty in which we are placed in regard to Scotland does not arise in the case of England, because in this country a councillor is elected by direct election, and he may be directly elected to the county council or the borough council, or to both. In the case of Scotland you have the test imposed that the representative votes only upon the finance connected with his own burgh. Now we are handing over to the county council a whole range of services in regard to which you cannot draw a proper line of demarcation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is one of the reasons why we have altered the test. The test does not relate to services which are capable of being exercised within the burgh. There is no line
of demarcation in the case of every one of those services and, although not exercised, they are capable of being exercised within the burgh. That will be one of the matters on which the burgh representatives will be able to vote.

Question put, "That the word 'representing' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 108.

Division No. 170.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Penny, Frederick George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hamilton, Sir George
Perring, Sir William George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hanbury, C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Apsley, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G (Somerset, Frome)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harland, A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Atkinson, C.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major John Waller
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E, A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)
Sandon, Lord


Buchan, John
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw. Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chamberlain, Rt Hn. Sir J.A (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Loder, J. de V.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonaid, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Titehfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macintyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Bavies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingtton-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairympie-


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torguay)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Withers, John James


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Galbraith. J. f. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.
Bowyer.


Grant, Sir J. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Barr, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bellamy, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barnes, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Clark, A. B.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, E


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Smillie, Robert


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Strauss, E. A.


Denniscn, R.
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren Andrew
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Fenby, T. D.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G M
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Waiter


Hardle, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Hayes.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(3) For the purposes of the reconstitution of county councils under this Section the Secretary of State shall have power by order to determine the number of county councillors for the county and to apportion them between the landward area and the burghs entitled under any Act, including this Act, to be represented on the county council, and to determine the contents and boundaries of electoral divisions in the county, and in making any determination of the number or any apportionment of county councillors the Secretary of State shall have regard to the reduced rateable value (within the meaning of Part III of this Act) of the landward area and the burghs and to the matters (other than value) referred to in Section five of the Act of 1889.
(4) Before making an Order under the foregoing Sub-section the Secretary of State shall cause the draft of the proposed Order to be published in such manner as he shall determine in order to make the same known to all persons interested, and shall consider any objections and representations respecting the proposed Order, and, if he sees fit to do so, cause a local inquiry to be held, and the Order when made shall be forthwith published in the 'Edinburgh Gazette,' and in a newspaper circulating in. the area to which it relates.
(5) The councillors representing a burgh shall not vote in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of any function of the county council unless that council is entitled to exercise the function within the burgh.
The purpose of the first of these new Sub-sections is to enable the electoral areas, and thereby the number of representatives elected to the county council, to be fixed at the commencement of the operation of this Bill. I should say that the Bill as drafted practically incorporated Section 5 of the Act of 1889, but it was thought more convenient to re-draft the Sub-section and set out the provision anew. I should explain to the Committee that in 1889, when the county councils were set up for the first time, it was the case that, as those who are familiar with the geographical county distribution in Scotland will know, many counties had very awkward boundaries, and some had odd bits lying about here and there. At the time when the Local Government Act was passed, a Boundary Commission was set up to rectify the boundaries of the counties, and that Boundary Commission was also entrusted with the task of settling the electoral areas within the counties themselves as so altered. Thereafter, the Secretary for Scotland, under Section 5 of the Act, fixed the number of representatives. At the present time we have no Boundary Commission, and it is pro posed that the Secretary of State for Scotland should fix the electoral divisions as well as the number of representatives —it comes, of course, to very much the
same question—and the new Sub-section (3) makes provision for that purpose.
The question of future revisions of these electoral divisions or numbers of representatives will still depend on Section 51 of the Act of 1889. Under that Section, an alteration in the numbers or the areas which had been fixed in 1889 could only be made on application by a county council or the council of a burgh which contributed representatives to the county council. Under the altered conditions we think it is right that the landward members should also have the right to apply to the Secretary of State to revise the boundary, because one wants to cover all possibilities, and it might well be that the landward members might be in a minority, and, under Section 51 as it stands at present, they would have no right to apply to the Secretary of State. Of course, the Secretary of State would only proceed after hearing both sides in settling what was really fair, but I think the Committee will agree that as the burghs, under Section 51 as it stands, have the right, although they may be in a minority, to make application, and the whole county has the right alternatively, it is proper that the landward representatives should have a similar right, and we propose to put down an Amendment for the Report stage to insert in Section 51 words something like these:
or a majority of the members representing the landward areas.
That would mean that a majority of the members representing the landward areas would have a similar right to that enjoyed by the burghs to ask for revision in future.
The next of the new Sub-sections provides for the machinery of publishing the proposed draft Order, considering representations, and holding an inquiry if it is found to be desirable. We have issued the White Paper which has already been referred to and is in the hands of hon. Members, with a tentative draft scheme for the numbers of representatives proposed in the various county areas. That scheme, broadly speaking, takes into consideration the elements which the Secretary of State, if this Amendment be accepted, will be directed to take into account. Those elements are the same elements for consideration which are prescribed in Section 5 of the
Act of 1889, except that, instead of the gross valuation there mentioned, we have substituted the reduced valuation which is the result of this present Bill. With regard to that White Paper, I will only repeat what I think has been said already and what is said in the White Paper itself—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: is that Command Paper No. 3263?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes. It is framed for the express purpose of being subjected to criticism, and we shall welcome any help that we can get on this subject, which I think everyone will agree is one that is none too easy to decide. We hope we shall get, and I have no doubt that we shall get, some very valuable help with regard to seeing that the matter is fairly adjusted, and, if there is any assistance that hon. Members can give us in the matter, we shall be very glad of it. Quite obviously, however, it would be unwise to attempt in any way to come to a definite conclusion as regards any criticisms until we have all the criticisms that we expect, helpful or otherwise, either from inside the House or from those in Scotland who are interested in the matter. Until then, it would be premature to try to come to any conclusion.
Sub-section (5) deals with a matter which was incidentally referred to in the discussion on the last Amendment, namely, what is known as the question of the ins and outs. Under the Act of 1889, the old test was that the representative of a burgh was to be entitled to vote on any matter except one in which the burgh was not financially interested—"liable to contribute" is the exact wording. The Ayrshire County Council, at one of their meetings, were considering the salary to be given to a new assessor for the purposes of valuation whom they had to appoint, and, at a subsequent meeting, having already fixed the salary at the first meeting, they proceeded to consider whom they should appoint; and at the second meeting, the salary Having been already fixed, the burgh representatives claimed to vote, and they voted. That was challenged, on the ground that it was not a matter in which they were financially interested. I should explain that the burgh was a separate valuation area, and had its own assessor. The Courts
held that, there being no financial matter under consideration at the second meeting, the burgh representatives were entitled to vote. I think that that was a wrong situation. It is necessary to find a new basis to avoid that difficulty.
At the same time, there is the further point, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E, Brown) in the Debate on the last Amendment, that there is a broader view under this Bill. I would like hon. Members, if I may make the suggestion to them, constantly to keep in mind the fact that these big services which are being transferred— and this is a matter to bear in mind particularly in connection with this question of in-and-out voting—these services are combined services, without any line of demarcation between town and county. It is a joint service for the whole area. Therefore, we selected words which would meet that point. It might happen that, at the moment when a meeting is being held and the subject is under discussion, that particular service is not being given in the burgh, though it is being given in the county, and we do not want the county people to be able to say to the burgh: "You have no right to vote on this question, because this service is not being carried on in the burgh, and you really have no interest in it at all." Therefore, we have chosen the phrase in Sub-section (5) that would seem to cover anything in which they could possibly be interested. I notice there is an Amendment to add the words:
or the burgh is liable for part of the expenses incurred in the exercise of such functions.
If the Movers of that Amendment can cite a single case which would not be covered by Sub-section (5), and which requires that addition, I will accede to it at once, because we do not want to leave it out, but my understanding of the thing is that every case in which a burgh could possible be "liable for a part of the expenses incurred in the exercise of such functions" must be a case in which the county would be entitled to exercise that function within the burgh and, therefore, as at present advised, those words do not seem to add anything at all to the Government Amendment. One does not want unnecessary words which may create confusion. I did not give the
exact reference to the Section in the Act of 1886 on this point. It is Section 73 (8), and the expression was that they were not to act or vote in respect of any matters involving expenditure to which such burgh does not contribute. That was a very narrow, technical view of the Section to take, that it enabled a burgh representative to vote on the appointment of an overseer who had no right to effect any valuation -within the burgh and to whose salary they were not bound to contribute a single penny. I think we have avoided that and at the same time recognised the new basis of these joint services by the phraseology we have used. I submit that in this revision of Sub-section (3) the matter is on a more satisfactory basis and one which the Committee should accept.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think the hesitancy with which the Lord Advocate addressed the Committee should of itself be an intimation to it that it should be very careful in accepting or rejecting any particular Amendment. He concluded by advising us that the Amendment to which my name is attached was in his opinion quite unnecessary. Even with his very exalted legal knowledge, which we all admit, he seemed to be very much in doubt. One other general observation. I hope hon. Members will not walk into the trap which he laid when he said that in the discussion of this Amendment he would like the advice of the Committee on the terms of the White Paper, because the object of the Government in issuing this White Paper was to get the assistance of the Committee in the proper distribution of the members who would compose the reconstituted council. No opportunity is to be given to the Committee to apportion these members at all. We are carrying out here one of the conspicuous features of the Bill, and that is to delegate all the things we discuss to other people to perform, and in this case we are asked to delegate to the Secretary of State the apportionment of the members, and indeed the decision in regard to the number of members. I should like the Committee to spend its time in consideration of the things that they may do rather than in giving advice to the Secretary of State as to what he should do in 1930.
The part of the Amendment to which I want to direct special attention is the part dealing with what the Lord Advocate has termed the "ins" and "outs," an expression with which we are perfectly familiar in Scotland. I hope the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have consulted those in Scotland who have had experience of the working of this system in the past. There is really nothing new about it. It has been in operation for a great many years. I remember sitting on the county council of Lanark when we had to administer our duties in the district committees within the system of the constitution of the committee which we are asked to accept here. We had in the lower ward committee members from Partick and members from Govan, and, after a long and weary effort we had to abandon all attempts to work that scheme and, although it was quite illegal—the Secretary of State will have evidence of this in the Minutes of those district committees for 1910–11—to abandon the system of "ins" and "outs" and allow the burgh members to vote on every question that came before the district committee. May I remind the Committee what it means. You are going to form a council in which there are three distinct classes of councillors. There is, first, the councillor who represents a small burgh, and there will be certain questions on which he can vote. Then you have the representative of a larger burgh, and he again has separate voting powers. Then you have the representative of the landward area, the county council proper, and he in turn has votes which are quite distinct from either No. 1 or No. 2. These people are asked to sit on benches just like these, and with these three distinct classes of voting power they are expected to carry on their business. In actual operation, it is so difficult that the newly-constituted councils will quickly abandon it and apply to the Secretary of State to find them a workable method to take them out of their difficulty.
I could not illustrate it better than by asking hon. Members to think how it would work here. We have members who are elected in Ireland, others in Scotland, and others in England. We are dealing to-day with a purely Scottish Measure. Imagine what it would mean if you had different voting powers. If you examine the benches at any period of our delibera-
tions, there will be very few Englishmen here, because the Bill does not apply to England. But these Englishmen are waiting somewhere in the caves or in the cells, or in the rooms, until the Secretary of State blows his horn, and then the English voters, without having listened to the deliberations, much less participated in them, will come in their overwhelming numbers and impose this ridiculous system on Scotland of which they know nothing and which Scotland does not want. It would be quite impossible to carry on the business of the House if we were to be told here and there, you can vote on No. 1 but not on No. 2 or No. 3, and the next can vote on No. 3 or No. 2 but not on No. 1. These people have been brought from a very-wide area, in an extensive county, and they are expected to spend the whole day in conducting their business in that complicated and unbusinesslike manner. That is the sort of law and constitution under which county councils will have to conduct their business in the days to come.
May I turn to the words in the Amendment in my name, saying that if a burgh has to contribute to the performance of any function by the county council, the burgh representative should have a voice in determining how that money is to be spent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he cannot move his Amendment. I do not know whether he wishes to move it immediately, but we must get rid of the words to be left out before he can move to insert others. If it is for the general convenience to have a general discussion on the Amendments that are on the Paper—and I have a manuscript Amendment as well—they must be divided on when they are put to the Committee without further discussion.

Mr. WHEATLEY: After this Amendment is dealt with, there will not be much more left on this point to discuss, because the whole case is contained in Sub-section (5) of the Government Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move—

7.0 p.m.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no intention of moving at this stage at all. I am merely dealing with the Amendment submitted by the Lord Advocate. I am not moving an Amendment but I am stating, as an objection to that, that it might be possible that the burgh ratepayer would have to pay tor some function which the county council have the right to exercise within the burgh. In the Amendment submitted by the Lord Advocate, the burgh representative would have no right to vote on the expenditure relevant to that function when it came up in the county council. The Lord Advocate has challenged me to produce a case in which the burgh would be rated for a function the administration of which would be in the hands of the county council. I confess I cannot offhand mention one, but is it reasonable to expect me to do so when we are dealing with a Measure of great complexity which baffles even the legal advisers? Is my failure to do so any reason why we should refuse to protect the burgh against that state of affairs arising? It is no reason at all, because, if a case should arise in which a burgh was rated for a function which the county council performed within the burgh and the burgh representative was not able to vote how his own money should be spent, it would be an injustice. The Government should see the weakness of that, and should accept in substance the words of a later Amendment. In the interests of good administration, the Government should get a clearer way out than that provided in the Amendment. It will be baffling to the county councils who have to operate under it. It will not work and, if the Secretary of State had made inquiries among the county councils, I would be surprised if he had received approval or support for the proposal in this Amendment from any of them. I therefore oppose the Amendment.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I rise to refer to two points. The first deals with the voting power under Sub-section (6). I believe that the Government want this arrangement to work. They want it to be a smoothly running, well-oiled machine, but nothing is more likely to make it a bad machine and to make people obstinate than this Amendment and this differentiation in the voting power of
those who form this council. The argument is used that, because (certain functions are performed entirely outside the burghs, the burghs should not vote on them. But their representatives are members of the council and should be entitled to vote. The Government are making a mistake in this, and are spoiling the smooth working of their machine. They say that the representatives in the burghs can only vote on certain functions. Supposing there comes up the question of the hour at which the meeting is to be held or the question of the expenses paid to members, are they to be allowed to vote on those points? You are bound to get these degrees of demarcation. I feel very strongly on this matter, and I am backed on it by the burghs I represent. This system will create chaos, and the sooner it is removed the better.
The other point I desire to raise is that of the powers taken by the Secretary of State. Under what arrangements will he allocate the number of members to the counties or the burghs? By population? By valuation? By a combination of both? Are there to be any rules, or is he to be given a free hand? This is a very important point, because we are delegating the whole working of this machine to the Scottish Office. We ought to have some guidance on this point. In my opinion, too, Sub-section (5) undoubtedly wants the addition of the words which the Lord Advocate said were not required, and I hope that they will be added as a safeguard against any possible difficulty or misunderstanding.

Captain STREATFEILD: The point I wish to raise has been largely covered by the last speaker, and there is a great deal of substance in what he says. I am glad to see this Amendment upon the Paper, but I want some amplification of it. My constituency is very much concerned about it. We have several small burghs which are coming under the new county councils, and they are so small that it is quite possible that they may very largely be swamped by the other representatives. Under this scheme the county council is going to be a rating authority, and the burgh ratepayers will have to contribute to the services of the county council and its administration. It is quite obvious that it is only justice to the burgh ratepayers that they should have an assur-
ance that they are to be adequately represented, and are to have power and a voice in these matters. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary agrees with me. In Sub-section (5) the burgh representatives on the county councils are not to have any vote in maters of finance which do not affect the burgh, which are entirely outwith the burgh. The rates the burgh ratepayers have contributed to the council may very likely be used for the very purpose on which the burgh representatives are not entitled to vote. I should like information on that important point.
The only other point I want to raise is the formula on which the Secretary of State is going to base the representation of burghs on the county councils. I have had much correspondence with him on the matter, and he hag answered me with infinite trouble and with the courtesy with which we are all familiar. I would like some details as to how he proposes to settle the number of representatives the burghs are to have on the county councils. He takes power to settle that, and we are entitled to ask for details as to what is to be done. I am certain he will appreciate the points which I, in conjunction with other Members, have made, and I hope he will give an answer. I hope this Amendment will be carried through for the harmonious working of a Bill which is going to do a great deal of good.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: We need a little more enlightenment on Sub-section (5). This Sub-section states that the councillors representing the burghs shall not vote on any matter relating to the exercise of any function of the county council unless that county council is entitled to exercise the function within the burgh. That makes it very narrow indeed. I hope the Government will answer the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison). With regard to the con-venership I understand that any resident will be entitled to stand, but will the members of the burgh be entitled to vote for him? If they do, can anyone say that they are voting on a matter which is concerned with the exercise of the council's functions within the burgh 1 Are they entitled to vote on questions of procedure? Under this Bill the county councils will be able to vote travelling and subsistence allowances to their mem-
bers. That is not a function which the council will be exercising within the burgh. If you add these words, "or the burgh is liable for part of the expenses incurred in the exercise of such functions," it is obviously an expense which the council is incurring. That seems to me to meet that point. We want to make quite certain that these representatives of the burghs shall be entitled to vote on all questions of procedure, the time of meetings and so forth, and on all questions involving finance for which the citizens of their burgh might have to pay.

Mr. BUCHANAN: on a point of Order. I am anxious to speak on this Amendment, Mr. Herbert, hut you have called two Liberals, although I have never spoken on this Bill until now. Is there any preference given in this Committee as against an ordinary Member?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member is unfortunate in not catching my eye.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Apart from being unfortunate, it has been the custom to accept parties as they are. I want to ask whether, in common fairness, it is the practice to call two Liberal Members after one Labour Member has spoken, and to cut out the other who has never taken part in the Debate at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can raise this question as a point of Order. Certain informal recognised customs assist the occupant of the Chair in passing his eye over the House, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to question the exercise of discretion by the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think I have been most unfairly and wrongly treated.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Major Elliot.

Major ELLIOT: I will endeavour to reply to some of the points that have been raised. With regard to the voting power of the members of the new county authorities I would point out that the county authority deals with the five great major services, the poor, the police, the roads, health and education, and any member of the new authority can vote on any of these subjects.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Affecting the county?

Major ELLIOT: Affecting the county, of course. On any question of classified roads any member of the county council can vote without any question of in or out. No difficulty can arise. If it is a question of putting up a bridge at the other end of the county, the burghal member will vote exactly on the same lines as the county member representing that area, because it will be. a function which the county council is entitled to exercise within the burgh. On any other question concerned with the five major services with which the county council deals, and in respect of which the burgh ratepayers may be affected by a rate, the burgh representatives on the county council will have the free, unfettered right of voting, and there will be no question of in or out. Hon. Members opposite ask that the representatives should be made equal in all respects. They are already under the Bill equal in all respects. The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is really asking, if I understand him correctly, that the burghal member should be put into a position of superiority. Take a question where the county council has no right to exercise a function within a burgh—the question of housing, for instance. Obviously, it would be unfair for the burgh members to vote on a question of county housing, seeing that they will not be affected by the county rate in respect of it and, similarly, it would be unfair for the county representatives to vote on such a matter affecting a burgh, because they would not be affected by the burgh rate. To suggest that the burghal representative should not be subject to any interference by the county representative in regard to housing but that the burghal representative should be able to go over to the counly and, on a question of county housing, to alter the county rate would not make the two men equal but would make the burgh man superior. Are we all agreed upon that? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are objecting to you putting them there.

Major ELLIOT: We are all agreed that they are there, by the last decision of the Committee, and the point we are now debating is whether they are in a position of complete equality. First of all, they are in a position of complete equality in regard to all the services
which affect them in common, and on those services they can vote without any suggestion of differentiation between the burgh man and the county man. The only differentiation between the two is the question of finance. The question of finance affecting the landward area is to be voted upon by the landward area representatives and the question of finance affecting the burghal area will be voted upon by the burghal area representative in the burgh council.

Mr. HARDIE: Sub-section (5) of the proposed Amendment provides that:
The councillors representing a burgh shall not vote in respect of any matter relating to the exercise of any function of the county council unless that council is entitled to exercise the function within the burgh.
Notwithstanding that provision, the hon. and gallant Member would have us believe that the burghal and county representatives are equal.

Major ELLIOT: Yes. There are certain services which, in response to the long-continued and bitter appeals of the burghs, we are reserving to the burghs. We have refused to wipe out the burgh. The burgh remains, the burgh council remains, the burgh rate remains, the burgh housing, the burgh sewage, the burgh waterworks—all these important functions remain. These are functions which are reserved to the burghs, at the request of the burghs, which the county council is not entitled to exercise within the limits of the burgh, and the burgh representatives are, similarly, not entitled to exercise those functions in regard to the county. Now, are we all agreed?

Mr. HARDIE: No.

Major ELLIOT: If my hon. Friend will put his difficulty in a few words I shall be glad to try to answer it.

Mr. HARDIE: If there are to be equal rights in the council why is it necessary to have a specification and to give something to one and not to another? Is that an equal footing?

Major ELLIOT: We are putting the specification in the Clause to preserve the equal footing. That is specifically the purpose and effect of the provision, which says that the burgh man is not to be in a position of superiority over the county
man and that the county man is not to be in a position of superiority over the burgh man.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Can the hon. and gallant Member arrange for a demonstration meeting?

Major ELLIOT: I fail to see what more demonstration meeting we could have.

Mr. WHEATLEY: A demonstration of the reconstituted county council.

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow the alluring coat which he is trailing before me. The hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild) brought forward the question of the Stranraer rep represntatives.

Captain STREATFEILD: It was not limited to them.

Major ELLIOT: I will take the single example of the representatives of Stranraer. Of the representatives from Stranraer, three attend the county council at the present time. It is proposed that five shall attend the county council in future. Those five members will go to the county council and will be able to vote on everything connected with the classified roads, the poor, health, education and the police without any question of differentiation arising between Provost Dyer and his colleagues from Stranraer and any other member of the county council. Provost Dyer may be chosen as chairman of the county council. A question was also raised with regard to expenses.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: And procedure.

Major ELLIOT: The question of procedure will be dealt with by the Lord Advocate. In regard to expenses, I have no doubt whatever that the expenses are a function in respect of which the county council is entitled to rate within the burgh. Therefore, the county council will vote without any differentiation between members of the county council.

Captain STREATFEILD: My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the figure of three and the figure of five with respect to Stranraer. How is the figure arrived at?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. and gallant Member will find the formula laid down in Command Paper 3263, which explains
at length the calculations in regard to population and valuation.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Will the small burgh representatives have the right to take part in the proceedings in the election of chairman and officers of the county council?

Major ELLIOT: They will have a complete right to take part in the election of chairman and officers of the county council, for those are matters affecting the whole of the new authority which is exercising functions within the burgh just as within the county.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: The Under-Secretary has stated that it will be possible for the provost of a burgh to be the convener of a county. I can visualise a county council meeting where, in such a case, a burghal representative would be in the chair and conducting the business of the county council without having the right to vote on the subject that was being decided by the county council.

Major ELLIOT: The Lord Advocate has already dealt with that point. He will have his casting vote. Nobody denies that. He will have a vote by virtue of his office as chairman.

Mr. WATSON: The Under-Secretary has been drawing our attention to the fact that the burghal representatives will not be entitled to vote on certain things that come before the council, and he cited housing. Supposing the question before the county council was the question of housing, and a provost from a burgh was the chairman and convener of the county council. He would be there conducting the business of the county council in the capacity of chairman, and yet he would have neither voice not vote on that particular question which was being decided by the county council.

Major ELLIOT: Obviously, when you have five great services which are common to the whole, and certain services which are reserved, the latter services will be conducted in the landward committee and the burghs respectively. Landward housing will be conducted in the landward committee. It is only in respect of the five great services that the full county council will meet. The burgh will discuss its housing in the burgh council and the county will discuss its housing in the
landward committee, and we shall be able to settle times of meeting without one party interfering with the other.

Mr. WATSON: Surely, the hon. and gallant Member knows that the recommendations and decisions of the committees have to come before the full county council? Are we to have a man sitting in the chair at the county council who has neither a voice nor a vote in the decisions of the council? If so, the position will be absolutely ridiculous in regard to the convener. We shall find that when the reconstituted county council meets, the claim will be made by the landward members that a full county councillor alone who has the right to vote on any subject before the county council, should be elected chairman. I have been examining the White Paper so far as my own county council is concerned and I notice that if you take the Leuchars division you have a place with just over 3,000 population having two representatives on the county council, while in another division which has a larger population they are only to have one representative. The position is equally anomalous in regard to the burghs. The burgh of Culross, with just over 500 of a population, will get the same representation on the county council

as a burgh with over 5,000 population. That is most unfair and requires to be looked into.

The LORD ADVOCATE: In a few words I will reply to the question which has been raised with respect to settling procedure for Standing Orders and so on, and the expenses of individual members attending the county council. I am willing to reconsider the matter and to make quite sure that such questions shall be open to the burgh representatives, but my strong opinion is that neither of these matters involves the exercise of the function of the county council. The question of expenses of individual members relates to the exercise of the individual members' functions and not the exercise of functions of the complete council.

It being half-vast Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of V2th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 195.

Division No. 171.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Murnin, H.


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Bellamy, A.
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Sakiatvala, Shapurjl


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Clark, A. B.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, E.


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smillie, Robert


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Livingstone, A. M.
Strauss, E, A.


Dennison, R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sullivan, Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edge, Sir William
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Gavan)
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Westwood, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wright, W.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Windsor, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A. Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzonl, Sir John.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nuttall, Ellis


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oakley, T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Froderick George


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perring, Sir William George


Atkinson, C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir George
Power, Sir John Cecil


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hanbury, C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harland, A.
Raine, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt, R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.- Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J.G.
Savery, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co, Down)


Buchan, John
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A N.


Burman, J. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Clarry, Reginald George
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Couper, J. B.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Doritend)
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Looker, Herbert William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lumley, L. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warner, Brigadier-General W. w


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, I.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, John James


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. A. (Ayr)
Wragg, Herbert


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nelson, Sir Frank



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor




Warrender.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 112.

Division No. 172.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Atkinson, C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hamilton, Sir George
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hannan, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Berry, Sir George
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandon, Lord


Buchan, John
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sketton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlna, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hunter Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Clayton, G. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Wastm'land)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, J. O.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lroyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lodar, J. de V.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Thorn, Lt.-Col- J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davias, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier General W. W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Flelden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northers)


Forrest, W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Frece, Sir Walter de
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Withers, John James


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Viscount


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)



Grant, Sir J. A.
Nuttall. Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oakley, T.
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warrender.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Greenall, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barr, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bellamy, A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Groves, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Grundy, T. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dennison, R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bromfield, William
Duncan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Bremley, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edge, Sir William
Hardie, George D.


Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Harris, Percy A.


Buchanan, G.
Fenby, T. D.
Hayday, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hayes, John Henry


Clark, A. B.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie




Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sullivan, Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Sutton, J. E.


John, William (Rhonoda, west)
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry
Tomlinson, R. P.


Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)
Paling, W.
Townend, A. E.


Kennedy, T.
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kirkwood, D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lansbury, George
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Livingstone, A. M.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Welsh, J. C.


Longbottom, A. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood,.J.


Lowth, T.
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R (Aberavon)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mackinder, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, Walter


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wright, W.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.



March, S.
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A.


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (paisley)
Stephen, Campbell
Barnes.


Morris, R. H.
Strauss, E. A.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment made:

In page 10, line 1:2, leave out Sub-

section (5), and insert instead thereof the words:
(5) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200: Noes, 111.

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[7.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Qxf'd. Henley)


Alexander, Sir Wm (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hills, Major John Waller


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hilton, Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies. Sir Thomes (Cirencester)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hepkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Barnctt, Major Sir Richard
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, H)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Flelden, E. B.
Hume, Sir G. H


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Blundell, F. N.
Forrest, W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Frece, Sir Walter do
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brittain, Sir Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. O.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'tb'l'd., Hexham)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Loder, J. de V.


Buchan, John
Grant, Sir J. A.
Looker, Herbert William


Burma, J. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lumley, L. R.


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdnnald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Blrm., W.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Mardonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Charterls, Brigadier, General J.
Hamilton, Sir George
Maclntyre, Ian


Clarry, Reginald George
Hanbury, C.
McLean, Major A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harland, A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cockerill, Brig,-General Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Couper, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Masan, Colonel Glyn K.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Meniman, Sir F. Boyd


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ruggtes-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandon, Lord
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Warner, Brigadter-General W. W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Slmms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Skelton, A. N.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, S. R.


Oakley, T.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C (Devon, Torquay)


Perring, Sir William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Withers, John James


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wolmer, Viscount


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Radford, E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Raine, Sir Walter
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wragg, Herbert


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tasker, R. Inigo.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hertford)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Paling, W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bellamy, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Broad, F. A.
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shlels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Clark, A. B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillis, Robert


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, W


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Sir Oswald



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.

CLAUSE 9.—(Election of reconstituted county councils.)

Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, In page 10, to leave out from the word "and," in line 24, to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words:
thirty, upon which date one-third of the members so elected shall retire, and subsequent electrons shall take place on the said first Tuesday of December in every year
thereafter at which one-third of the elected members shall retire.
The purpose of this Amendment is to place the elections for the county councils in line with the elections for the town councils. So far as the county councils are concerned, under the proposals in the Bill, they will be elected every three years. The Amendment is to bring the county council elections into line with the burgh elections so that one-third of the county councillors shall retire each
year, thus providing for new elections so far as one-third of the county councillors are concerned, and giving the electors the same opportunity of expressing their opinions as the electors have in the burghs. I am not anxious to take up much time of the Committee now, because Amendments that have to be moved on this particular Clause later on are of more vital importance so far as democratic representation and the rights of those who are called upon to pay, particularly in connection with education, the money that has to be raised by the rates, are concerned. I am moving this Amendment so that one-third of the elected members of the county council shall retire every year; then you will have annual elections as in the case of the burghs at present.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am rather hopeful that the Secretary of State will accept this Amendment, after having listened to the previous discussion. Two systems have been in operation, the system that has allowed an election to take place once every three years, and that which is applied more generally in the municipal areas and has resulted in one-third of the council retiring every year. It has been pointed out, in connection with this Measure, that one of the things which we are anxious to do is to have a real interest taken by the electorate in the elections. To achieve that, it is necessary to have annual elections of a part of the council That will mean that each year the various issues which have arisen will gather themselves together at election time, and the electorate will be able to keep in touch with the council in matters of administration. An Amendment was not accepted with regard to direct election in the various areas in the burghs, but I hope that the Committee generally will recognise that it is only reasonable that a certain proportion of the county councils should retire each year. There is no great principle involved in this matter, and nothing that will alter the scope of the Bill. There are no algebraical calculations or formulae which specially involve any working out, and I hope this concession will be made, so that the people of the districts may be able to keep in close touch with their councils and that the administration may be more efficient.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I fear I cannot accept the Amendment. Let us consider this problem for a moment. It is suggested that the long-established custom that has been followed in regard to county councils shall be departed from. It is suggested that the period of three years, for which members are elected to the county council, is an unduly long time, and that the practice which is pursued in the burghs ought to be adopted in the counties. In the first place, it is clear that it has been a long-established custom in county council work, ever since the county councils have been established, that members should be returned for three years.

Mr. STEPHEN: We do not propose that a member should not be returned for three years. Members returned to the county council will be elected for three years, but one-third of them will retire each year.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is suggested that a certain number should retire each year. That would entail an annual election for a portion of the county council I do not think there is any justification for placing that burden on the community. Of course, there are arguments that could be used, as they have been used, in favour of this proposal, but I would point out that in the case of a county it is unnecessary to interfere with long-established practice and that, in fact, this method of working has proved itself to be satisfactory. What is the desire at the back of the minds of hon. Members? Is it to obtain a continuity of service and knowledge? I look at this from the point of view that this central body is going to be concerned with the major health services. Clearly, in regard to people elected for the counties in the landward areas, the custom has been to elect them for three years. There would be no justification, certainly in the landward areas, for imposing upon those districts annual elections even for a proportion of the number of representatives. The expense would be quite unnecessary and no advantage would be likely to result from the change. We in Parliament, in our wisdom, decided, in order to deal with the very much larger problems here, first of all to have a seven years' term of
election; then we had a five years' term of election. We depend, of coarse, for fresh entrants upon those Members who come to the House from what are known as by-elections. That system will also apply in regard to the county councils when vacancies arise. The services which are being dealt with are the larger health services, and there are great advantages in the people elected remaining members for a period during which they can become really conversant with the duties which they have to carry out. You will be subjecting individuals to quite unnecessary disturbance and you will place a useless cog in the machine of proper and efficient administration if you make a change in this long-established practice.

Mr. HARDIE: At the end of his remarks the Secretary of State for Scotland backed up our case when he spoke of efficiency and the need of it. He gave as an instance the case of Members of Parliament who were elected for seven years, and added that the period had now been reduced to five years. The right hon. Gentleman, however, from his personal experience, knows the tremendous difference between an election for a legislative chamber and an administrative chamber. Like the right hon. Gentleman, those of us who have been through administrative work know how difficult it would have proved if there had been a complete reelection of any public authority, and if the balance of efficiency, in the case of those members who have had two or three years' experience, had been disturbed. What we seek to do is to preserve that balance of efficiency. If you have a body coming out en masse, and if there is a complete change over, the whole of the administrative machinery becomes dislocated. Under the form of election which we seek, it will mean that one-third of the gentlemen acting as county councils will come up for re-election, and that two-thirds will remain, some for one year and others for two years, before they come out. They will all get a three years' term, and in that way we shall obtain what the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his ultimate remarks, efficient administration.
Our experience in Scotland with regard to the system under which one-third of a public body retired every year was that
we never broke the continuity, and that two-thirds of that body had a grip on what was taking place on the public body owing to their personal experience. I remember, when a change took place as a result of legislation passed through this House, a certain body was wiped out and a new body put in its place. The result was that 75 per cent. of the members returned to the new body had no acquaintance with the subjects to be dealt with, and it took three of the gentleman who had been returned 15 months before they knew exactly how to vote. There will be cases under this Bill where people will be in the same position, because on being elected they will have no time to apply themselves to the details, and they will be bound to be fogged when a question comes up on which they have the vote. As is always the case, the Labour party desire a maximum of efficiency. The efficient man, no matter where he is applying himself, is the man who has been taught by real experience. You cannot get an efficient man by placing someone who has never been on an administrative body before on such a body, and then expecting him to act efficiently before he understands the questions at issue and the working of the machinery of administration.
This claim of ours, apart from anything in the Bill and apart from de-rating, is a claim for real working efficiency, and we say that by this Amendment you can make an improvement. Some people may say: "What about the expense of an election recurring, as it will do here?" Yes, but you are going to lose less by that than you will by having continuous inefficiency for 18 months after an election. The administrative machine cannot retain its efficiency unless you have this continuity which is provided for by our Amendment. I hope the Secretary of State will see the great necessity for the Amendment and will agree to it, in order that something may be done to retain the efficiency so essential in an administrative body. Under our proposal, new members would be able to learn from those other members who had experience of administrative details. In that way you would secure continuous efficiency, and you would also secure more interest in these matters. Administrative affairs differ from legislative affairs, and the greater the lapse of time between elections in
the case of administrative bodies, the less interest there is in those bodies. When you kill public interest in it, the administration does not reflect the community, but is rather a reflection of "red tapeism."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 103.

Division No. 174.]
AYES.
[8.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Apsley, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atkinson, C.
Hamilton, Sir George
Pilcher, G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hanbury, C.
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raid, Capt. Cinningham (Warrington)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhvs, Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major J, Dearman
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, M. Stewart


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Home, St. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Burman, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Clarry, Reginald George
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Looker, Herbert William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Strcatfeild, Captain S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclntyre, Ian
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Morvyn
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Withers, John James


Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wragg, Herbert


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nuttall, Elite
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oakley, T.
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Compton, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Greenall, T.


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barr, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Crawfurd. H. E.
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hall, F. (Yortt, W. R, Normanton)


Bromfield, William
Duncan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Bromley, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hamfton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edge, Sir William
Hardle, George D.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Harris, Percy A.


Buchanan, G.
Fenby, T. D.
Hayday, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Clark, A. B.
Glbbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H


Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sullivan, Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Sutton, J. E.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pralstow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Palin, John Henry
Tomilnson, R. P.


Kennedy, T.
Paling, W.
Townend, A. E.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viaot, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watson, W M. (Dunfermline)


Lansbury, George
Potts, John S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lindley, F. W.
Ritson, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Longbottom, A. W
Sakiatvala, shapurji
Welsh, J. C.


Lowth, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Lunn, William
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mackinder, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacNeill-Weir, L
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor, Walter


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'tbampton)
Smillie, Robert
Wright, W.


Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.



Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) Section seven of the Act of 1889 (which relates to the qualification of county councillors), so far as unrepealed, and Section one of the County, Town, and Parish Councils (Qualification) (Scotland) Act, 1914, so far as relating to county councils, shall cease to have effect, and no person shall be qualified to be elected or to be a county councillor for an electoral division of a county unless—

(a) he is at the time of the election registered as an elector entitled to vote at an election of a county councillor for an electoral division of the county or as an elector entitled to vote at an election of town councillors of any small burgh included within the county; or
(b)is a person of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and has, during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election, resided within the county, including any small burgh but excluding any large burgh."
The purpose of the Amendment is to make quite specific those who are to be qualified by election as members of the newly constituted county authority, and, instead of having reference to Sections of previous Acts, we have stated specifically who are to be so qualified. I do not think anyone can have any objection to this Amendment so far, though there may be objection on some point of detail. Secondly, the purport of the Amendment is to make provision to allow those who are electors in small burghs to stand for election to the reconstituted county council. I think that is a proper and wise provision in respect that so many of the functions of the county council, particularly with regard to the major health services, are being exercised inside of the small burghs. I think there is
no one who can take any exception to this Amendment so far as it goes.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The objection that I have is that the Amendment does not go nearly far enough in the direction of enfranchising every individual who has to pay rates, for instance, in connection with education. It is undoubtedly making provision to enlarge the area from which you can get your county council representatives, because it enables the elector in a burgh to have the right of standing for election if he or she so desires in any part of the county. But the Amendment excludes a very large number of electors, ratepayers, and residents in the county from having any possibility of offering their services for county council work or directly for education work, unless the Government accept an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in my name on the Paper—in line 8, after the word "small," to insert the words "or large."
It is worth while knowing that at one time it was necessary for an individual offering his services to be on two registers, namely, the register to which he was nominated and the register on which he was to be elected. As a result of the War, the elections were indefinitely postponed until after the War, but there were by-elections in connection with various town councils, and as the law then operated an individual had to be on these two registers. But as no register had been prepared during the War, I think in the case of Edinburgh it was found that the Lord Provost, or someone of that kind, was not eligible for re-election in some particular election that took place at that time, with the result that we
had to get a new qualification in connection with the right to be elected to one or other of these administrative bodies. I now find that, although you are seeking further to amend the law because of the changes in connection with administration, you are going to do a very great disservice and injustice so far as the inhabitants in the large burghs are concerned.
The inhabitants of the small burghs will have two ways whereby they can get into the county council to deal with education administration. One way will be by standing for the town council, and having the possibility of being selected by the town council of any small burgh as its representative on the county council, and the other way will be by offering their services in one or other of the landward areas that have the right to elect directly a representative to the county council. But so far as the large burghs are concerned, you are going to make it impossible for anyone to offer their services directly to the electors for election to the county council, and consequently, if you would accept my Amendment, so as to enable the electors who are registered in the large burghs to have the same rights of election as are provided for those in the small burghs under your proposal, then there need be no further talk on this Amendment. All the arguments that have been used by the Solicitor-General for Scotland in favour of this change in the law of qualification so far as they refer to the small burghs ought equally to apply so far as the residents and electors in the large burghs are concerned; and I trust that the Government will be able to meet us in connection with this rather modest request for equality of opportunity for the electors in the large burghs.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to support the request that has been made to the Solicitor-General for Scotland by my colleague, and to point out that by making this additional extension there is not going to be anything taken away from the power of the people in the small burghs and the landward areas as compared with the large burghs. It is not as though you were giving voting rights to the people in the large burghs as against those in the small burghs and the landward areas, but all that is involved here is to let individuals who have got a
certain interest in the county through their connection with the large burghs to appeal to the electorate in the small burghs or landward areas in order to secure election. It is obvious that there can be no very strong objection to this proposal. One might say that individuals in large burghs might tend to dominate the county council and become the people with most control on the county council. That would be true if you were extending the electorate so that their position in the big burgh allowed them to come into the county council because: of the votes that they were securing in the large burghs; but you are giving nothing to them in the way of votes from the large burghs in this connection. You are simply giving them the right to become candidates at the elections and to secure the support of the electorate.
In this matter the Government are going too much by use and wont with regard to the qualifications that the individuals may have. We have very wide power with regard to coming into this House, for example. You do not require to have this or that franchise, to be on this or that roll, in order to come into the most important body in the Kingdom, namely, the House of Commons itself; but whenever it comes to local government, there is all this sort of idea that people must be on a local government roll and so on, and all these qualifications are required. The individual ought to be as free to stand for election to a county council or a town council as he is to stand for election to Parliament.
I know that in the past there was the idea that if people did not make this rule debarring individual:) there would be too many people coming in from the outside, as if the electorate themselves could not be trusted to deal with them. I do not think there is anybody in the small burghs or in the landward areas with a real chance of being elected who would be afraid to face the competition of somebody from a larger burgh; and there being those educational interests, and this being a time of transition in this matter, I think the Government ought to be able to meet us on this point. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will take the opportunity of signalising his intervention in the Debate by agreeing to this change. So far we have waited even for crumbs to fall from the
table of the Government but not a crumb has come to the Opposition. Seeing that so little is being asked I hope that the Government will see their way to grant this modest request to make it possible for people with education interest to come in as elected persons rather than have to go on to the education committee as co-opted members. We ask that the Government should at least give to members of the present education authorities as wide a possibility of continuing their work as elected representatives since so small a matter is entailed in the change.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The argument put forward by the hon. Member opposite has considerable force in it. We quite appreciate the difference between a person entitled to vote and a person entitled to stand for election. Without committing the Government, we are prepared to consider this question but also in the light of the county position. That is to say, that a person who resides in the county can likewise be elected in the burghs. We are quite prepared to consider the whole question between now and the Report stage without making any actual promise in the matter. That is as far as we can go. I think that we have gone a considerable way. After all, in a question like this, which is not a political question, but a question of local government, we want to do our best to have the most efficient local Government, and we will favourably consider the proposition that has been made by the other side.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion, but I am anxious to understand the reason for this proposal. What is the purpose of it? Why do the Government desire to exclude the residents in large burghs and

give them preference over those residing in the small burghs? Why is the resident in a small burgh to have a qualification that is denied to someone residing in a large burgh? I am quite prepared to let the matter stand over, but surely the Solicitor-General might advance some reason why this Amendment was put down.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The point was that under the existing law those who were resident in police burghs were qualified for the county council, while those in royal and parliamentary burghs were not. Some of the small burghs are police burghs and some are royal or parliamentary burghs, and we had to decide whether to exclude those residing in a small burgh or bring the small burgh in in the same way as the police burghs, and we came to the view that we should take in the small burghs.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: We ought to accept the shadow of the crumb that has been offered, with the hope that something more substantial will fall from the table of the Government.

Mr. WESTWOOD: After having received the definite statement that the Government will consider this matter, I suggest, from the electoral point of view, that, if the Government do something on the line suggested, they will do justice to a large number of residents as was not done to them under the original proposal. and I am prepared to accept the undertaking without pressing my Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 103.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[8.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.


Apsley, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Atkinson, C.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Buchan, John
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chapman, Sir S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Berry, Sir George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George
Dixey, A. C.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A, R. (Preston).
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stratford)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Looker, Herbert William
Savery, S. S


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Forrest, W.
Macintyre, I.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smithers, Waldron


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grant, Sir J. A.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harnnon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborougn


Harland, A.
Moroing, Captain A. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Cot. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nuttall, Ellis
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Oakley, T.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pilcher, G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Withers, John James


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hockney, N.)
Radford, E. A.
Wragg, Herbert


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ralne, Sir Walter
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Iveagh, Countess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Baker, J (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Hamlton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shupurji


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Shtels, Dr. Drummond


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stanford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Clark, A. B.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Crawturd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
MacNeill-Weir. L.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellly)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin, Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions for uniting burghs and combining counties for certain purposes.)

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
and, after the passing of this Act, any burgh or the combination of any two or more burghs forming a united burgh and containing a population of 20,000 or upwards shall, for all purposes whatsoever, on application to the Secretary of State be deemed to be a large burgh.
In the past, in the natural order of things, amalgamations of adjoining burghs have taken place when those burghs saw that amalgamation was desirable for administrative efficiency. In those cases amalgamations were sought in order to secure unification of their administrative machinery and their administrative services. I am quite sure that as the burghs grow this tendency will naturally increase, and I feel certain that no Member of the Committee would desire to retard it. The simple purpose of my Amendment, a purpose which is not served by any other part of the Bill, so far as I can see, is to provide that after the passing of this Bill the general provisions of it relating to large burghs shall be applicable to any new combination or amalgamation of burghs provided that the united burgh contains a population of 20,000 or upwards. It would be an impossible situation, unfair and inequitable, that a burgh with a population to-day, or at the last Census, of 20,500 should have conferred on it all the advantages and the status of a large burgh, while a united burgh which comes into being perhaps 12 months hence or earlier, with a population of 39,000, should be placed under county administration and refused the status of a large burgh. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to provide for such a situation.
The Secretary of State, it is true, has put down Amendments relating to the future position of united burghs, for instance, the position of Royal burghs, which retain their status, if they unite with burghs other than Royal burghs. It is true, also, that he has put down an Amendment to provide that where two or more burghs are united the whole of the functions of the councils of such burghs shall vest in the council of the united burgh. But the Committee will observe that this Clause relates to unifi-
cation as defined in Schedule 2 and all the burghs referred to in Schedule 2 are small burghs; their status is not changed, and naturally they come under county administration. The direct and definite-issue raised in this Amendment is this, will the amalgamation later of two-burghs, if the united burgh contain a population of 20,000 or upwards, result in that united burgh being given the status of a large burgh and being placed automatically outside county administration? That is the object I want to secure, and it is in order to get a definite statement from the Government as to their intentions that I am moving my Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: As I understand this Amendment, the Mover of it desires to make clear what will happen in the case of any burgh or the combination of any two or more burghs forming a united burgh with a population of 20,000 after the passing of this Bill.

Mr. KENNEDY: Would my Amendment secure that object?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir. The question is whether future increases in population should automatically bring such a combination of burghs within the purview of this Bill as large burghs. We have a precedent for this Clause in the Act of 1889, and the principle involved was settled by Section 104 of that Act. If there was good reason for this proposal at that time, there is a much stronger reason for introducing it in this Bill. The question is whether a burgh with a population of over 20,000 which has been arrived at by amalgamation with other burghs should automatically become a large burgh, or whether that should be done by Provisional Order or a Bill promoted in this House.
Everyone realises that the question of the transference of functions, property, and other liabilities ought not to be done automatically, and that is a question which should be settled at the time of the passing of the Bill by special provision dealing with any particular burgh. It is not really practicable for burghs at a later date, in view of the allocation of the grant and the transference of services, to come into this
scheme automatically in later years. That would involve a complete rearrangement of all the services which are settled at the initial stages of this Bill. That is why no provision has been made for any future decrease of population. For these reasons, we prefer that this matter should be dealt with on its own special footing.
With regard to any possible amalgamations which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) may have in mind, if those almalgamations could be effected before this Bill passes, it would be perfectly simple to include them in this Measure. I understand that that might be accomplished in one case which the hon. Member has in mind. If the hon. Member waits until the Bill is passed, then what he requires will be a very difficult thing to arrange, because the conditions will have changed in some areas. That is why it is necessary to say that it may be perfectly fair and right to do this by amalgamation and then apply to be admitted when they have obtained a population of 20,000.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: One of the good points which have been claimed for this Bill is its elasticity. We are now considering a case where elasticity is certainly not in evidence. It will be a great disappointment to find after the passing of this Bill, that we shall not be any further than we are to-day, and that we shall have to go through the same elaborate procedure in the future. If the words of this Amendment are not correct in form, or do not quite meet all the points, surely some phrase could be introduced which will ensure that the central authority can act as arbiter on such matters as the allocation of grant. I think the object of the Amendment can be attained in that way. This Bill has been brought forward in order to give more efficiency by producing larger administrative areas, and consequently everything in the Bill should tend to encourage the further development of that idea. We know many instances in Scotland of fairly large burghs which are adjacent that might be united with very great advantage to those burghs. I know that a large number of people object to these amalgamations, but, if it were possible under this Bill for these burghs to become
automatically autonomous local government units, there would be a very great encouragement to go on with such schemes.

The LORD ADVOCATE: You cannot combine those burghs without legislation; you require legislation for a combination.

Mr. STEPHEN: This is legislation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If burghs are ready to combine in time to be put into this Bill, we will consider putting them in, but the Amendment deals with combinations which may take place after the passing of this Bill, and that proposal could not be made effective without legislation.

Dr. SHIELS: At any rate, it will make the legislation much more complicated and expensive if the question of the allocation of grants has to be dealt with by Act of Parliament, or if it has to be dealt with at Westminster instead of in Scotland. One of the things that has helped to develop Scottish nationalism,. with which we have been familiar lately in its broadest aspect, has been the fact that if one part of Scotland has wanted to amalgamate with another, it has had to come to this House, engage any number of English lawyers, and has been put to the enormous expense of bringing witnesses. All that is perfectly unnecessary since we could do what we want quite well in our own country. It does not seem to be to be beyond the scope of draftsmanship to provide, by a little rearrangement in the Bill, that any combination of burghs, or any burgh developing in a natural way by increase of population, should automatically become a larger burgh after passing the 20,000 population limit, and that any question of grants or allocation of functions which could not be satisfactorily settled between them should be settled by the central authority. It seems to me that the encouragement which the Bill seeks to give to the development of larger areas of administration, and also to economy in. administration, suggests that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one in spirit with those ideals, and that it would tend to the development of local government and amalgamations and to administrative efficiency. I should be glad, therefore, if the matter could be further considered.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would give a little more consideration to this Amendment than he has given to it up to the present. If I understood him aright, he agreed that, if the Amendment were inserted in the Bill, it would make possible the necessary arrangements for the future combination of burghs and for burghs whose population has not yet reached the 20,000 standard but might reach it later. I understood the Lord Advocate to admit that, if this Amendment were put into the Bill, it would accomplish that object.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No. What I said was that I understood the intention of the Amendment to be that that object should be accomplished, but my view was that it was not possible, and that was my objection to the Amendment. It certainly would not be possible by this Amendment alone, though I am not complaining about that.

Mr. ADAMSON: That brings me to the second point that I want to put to the Lord Advocate. If this Amendment would not accomplish the object that we have in view, would he not consider now, or between now and the Report stage, the putting in of suitable words to accomplish that object?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think it is possible.

Mr. ADAMSON: If such an arrangement is not made, it will mean that, at any rate for a considerable number of years, the present arrangement will be stereotyped, and the view of my hon. Friends was that, having regard to the costly nature of the process of amalgamation—

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: If there is no opposition there is no great expense.

Mr. ADAMSON: I fear that my hon. Friend has not had very much experience of these matters, or he would not talk about there being no great expense. Those of us who have had experience of our local bodies having to come to the House of Commons to get sanction for a change such as that with which this Amendment deals, know that it is a very costly process, and I think that, while we are legislating, it would be wise to frame the legislation so as to leave it
open for future combinations of burghs, or burghs that may within a reasonable period have an increase of population beyond the 20,000 standard, to obtain the status of large burghs. Unless that is done, it may happen that a burgh whose population has increased even to 50,000 will still be described as a small burgh. I think it would be wise for the Government and for the House of Commons, as we are legislating, to make provision for the two contingencies dealt with in the Amendment, and I hope that the Lord Advocate has not said his last word on this point.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: I should like to join in the appeal that has been made to the Lord Advocate to consider this matter between now and the Report stage. If, as he says, the wording of the Amendment is not suitable, it should not be beyond the ability of the Scottish Office to devise words that would get over the difficulty. I am afraid that it is just the mood in which the Lord Advocate is at the moment that has been responsible for the attitude of the Scottish burghs towards this whole Bill. I do not need to remind the Lord Advocate that fierce hostility has been shown by the burghs towards the whole scheme of the Bill. The Government might have found much more agreement in Scotland had they been willing that there should be a little more come and go than has been shown by either the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate.
In the case of a burgh that has grown, either naturally, through its population exceeding the 20,000 limit, or by amalgamation, I do not think that any difficulty should be placed in the way of its achieving the position of being a large burgh, with the right to manage its own affairs. In the mood in which the burghs are at present, amalgamations are hardly to be looked for, because, as I have already said, they look upon the whole Measure with suspicion. Consequently, even where burghs have teen considering amalgamation, they do not feel that they are on entirely safe ground in going forward. Either the bigger or the smaller burgh is holding back rather than amalgamate now, because they do not know exactly what their position is going to be after the Bill becomes law. Provision should be made in the Bill for future amalgamation, or for a burgh whose popu-
lation exceeds the 20,000 limit gaining the right to be looked upon as a large burgh. I am certain that it is possible in the Measure that is now before us, to include provisions for taking these burghs out of the county scheme and placing them in the position of large burghs. There have always to be these negotiations and comings and goings between burghs and county councils; we have frequent cases of conflict between a county council and a burgh with regard to burgh extension; and there should be no objection to burghs whose population has gone beyond the 20,000 limit being placed in the same position as those which are beyond that limit at the passing of this Measure.
If the Lord Advocate will take a bit of good, sound advice, he will reconsider this matter, and it may bring him the advantage of causing the burghs to look upon this Measure much more favourably than they have up to the present. I dare say the Lord Advocate would be prepared to admit that, apart from the education authorities, the greatest hostility to this scheme has come from the burghs. That is due to the suspicion that has been in the minds of the burghs ever since the scheme was placed before the country. I hope, therefore, that the matter will be reconsidered between now and the Report stage, and that it will be found possible to devise a form of words that will get over the difficulty and allow these large burghs to become established without having to go through the costly process of promoting either Provisional Orders or Private Bills for the purpose. It should be our object to avoid expensive litigation in cases of that kind in the future and I hope the Lord Advocate will consider the matter.

Mr. E. BROWN: I can follow the point as to the difference between proceeding by Bill or by Provisional Order, but I cannot appreciate the Lord Advocate's following argument that it is necessary from the point of view of practical considerations affecting the grants. I can quite understand that under the new system there will be great changes necessary if you take two burghs out of a county area in applying the grants. But surely if you can alter that as the result of a Provisional Order you can alter it when ft is the effect of natural growth, because the whole thing from the point of view of growth turns on what the
grant is to be based on the standard year. The standard year is the same year whether you get powers to become a large burgh or whether it is a case of natural increase or of burghs uniting as suggested in this Amendment or whether in five or 10 years' time you can do it by way of Provisional Order in Parliament. The standard year problem is precisely the same in any case, so I fail to see where the practical argument from the point of view of grants applies. I can quite understand the definition in Clause 59 that a large burgh means one with a population of 20,000 or upwards, but I fail to see in the case of two burghs agreeing to unite, or a burgh increasing in population beyond the figure of 20,000, why the practical difficulty of applying the grants in the standard year, if it can be overcome in the one case, cannot be overcome in the other. That is the problem in my mind, and, although the Lord Advocate's statement was perfectly clear, he did not make clear to my mind what was the difficulty in the one case that did not exist in the other. We ought to have some further statement, because it is a very important matter. I agree that there would be a great loss in a county area if you took, say, the Burgh of Hawick, with a population of 17,900, out of it. In 10 years' time it may exceed 20,000 and may agree to unite with another and get a Provisional Order, and then it will be possible for Parliament to say that it shall become a large burgh. If you can get over the difficulty then, why not now? It seems to be much simpler, either in this form of words or by extending your definition, to make provision without raising the difficulties I foresee in the matter.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The amount of disturbance which will emerge as the result, ex hypothesi, when a burgh with a very large rateable value is taken out of the county unit, is only ascertainable at the time that the legislation is passed. You cannot anticipate: that now, because you do not know in how many years after the present time the disturbance is going to arise. It is not a question of words at all, but of practicability. We could easily find words if the thing were practicable, but in principle it is not practicable. In the other case, it is equally impracticable, and I fear there must be legislation. There is always a certain amount of expense involved, even where
there is no objection taken to a proposal and the parties are agreed. In taking away half the area of the medical officer of health, by suddenly dropping what has become a large burgh out of it, you are upsetting the whole scheme, and obviously you can only tell how far it is going to upset it, and what is a fair solution of the difficulty, by knowing the facts at the time when the circumstances arise. It might emerge only three years after the Bill has started working, or 20 or 25 years after, and it would make all the difference in the world whether it was 26 years or only three. The damage would be much more serious in the third year than in the 25th. But it is not practicable by any form of words in this Bill to anticipate fairly a settlement on the basis of which what has become in fact a large burgh by amalgamation or by natural growth should be allowed to drop out of the scheme.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I think the Lord Advocate is agreed that there is no practical difficulty in accepting the Amendment, or in finding a suitable form of words.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, it is exactly the opposite way. It is not as question of words. It is a question of practical difficulty and nothing else.

Mr. SULLIVAN: The Lord Advocate has been engaged in work of this kind, and he knows quite well that when a burgh is taken out of a county area a certain arrangement has to be come to. We are not suggesting that these arrangements will not still take place, but you can say that, in the future, when we reach a certain population or come to an agreement, the same thing would take place. You can overcome the disturbance to the system by fixing a time limit. You could say one, two, or three years after they have come to a decision, then automatically without any Provisional Order this thing can be put into effect. Some hon. Members seem to think that it is an easy thing to promote a Provisional Order. The last one I heard about cost £ 12,000. It may be that it can be done more cheaply, and it may be that it costs more. We believe in economy, and, if we can put this into an Act of Parliament and save expense, it is only common sense that we should do it.

Dr. SHIELS: I gather that the position is to be that, when two burghs wish to unite, they will have not only to satisfy a Committee here in the usual way that the combination is desirable, and will make for efficiency and good government, but that there will also be a new factor, and that is as to whether the combination will upset the balance of the county scheme. Therefore, we must take it that this new arrangement is going to be an additional hampering of the possibilities of unification in the burghs of Scotland. That is a serious point. I understood that the Lord Advocate said that taking a big rateable proposition out of the county was a very serious factor and would have to be considered in the inquiry into the scheme. That is introducing something new, which hitherto the burghs have not had to consider when the possibilities of amalgamation have been brought before them.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I am naturally not satisfied with the attitude of the Lord Advocate on this Amendment, and I ask him to face a possibility—in my opinion it is a probability—of a burgh being placed by the Bill, as it now stands, in the legal category of a small burgh, even though it has a population of 50,000 or more. His statement means that, while the Bill confers the benefits of unification on many small burghs, while it will, for example, confer it on a burgh like Arbroath, he still insists on compelling burghs in the future to incur all the expense and trouble of promoting a Provisional Order. Surely if unification of two burghs or a single burgh give a burgh of 25,000 or over and application is made, then we are entitled to assume that all interests have been taken into account by the burgh represenatives and that they have taken steps to adjust all their interests and relations with county interests with which they were formerly associated. Before this Amendment goes to a Division, I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the event of two burghs deciding to amalgamate before the passing of this Act and the population of the unified burgh amounting to over 25,000, he is prepared to give that unified burgh the full status of a large burgh and bring it within the scope of this Bill without the necessity for legislation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, I cannot, for the reason I have already stated, that I do not think it is possible to do so by any kind of words in this Bill. It is for that very reason that in 1889 they tied down the test of a small burgh— though they did not say so in words— to 7,000 as ascertained in 1889 or as ascertained in the Census of 18S1 or to a figure to satisfy the Secretary of State. One of the burghs, which, I understand, was at that time under 7,000 and is a small burgh for the purpose of the Act of 1889 at the present day, is the burgh of Clydebank, which at present has a population of 46,000 persons. It is a practical

question. I have already detained the Committee as long as I can in explaining how difficult it is to anticipate events. We have to anticipate, not only the question of agreement, but the question of dispute between the county and the burgh which gets out of it. I have not heard anything suggested from the opposite side which would lead me, however willing, to take the course which they suggest.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 170.

Division No. 176.]
AYES.
[9.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palln, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala shapurji


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Crown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Clark, A. B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Longbottom, A. W.
Tomllnson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Mackinder, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Glbbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Buchan, John
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Apsley, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Clarry, Reginald George
Fairfax, Captain J. O.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clayton, G. C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Berry, Sir George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Flelden, E. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Forrest, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)
Fremantle, Lt. Col. Francis E.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maclntyre, Ian
Skelton, A. N.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Hacking, Douglas H.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hamilton, Sir George
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Them, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oakley, T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilcher, G.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Wells, S. R.


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Price, Major C. W. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)
Winby, Colonel L. V.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Iveagh, Countess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Withers, John James


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wolmer, Viscount


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wragg, Herbert


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Loder, J. de V.
Rye, F. G.



Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.
Captain Margesson.


Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that any intervening county territory shall be included within the burghs so united, and the Secretary of State, subject to the provisions of this Act, on submission by the town and county clerks, jointly or severally, of a plan showing the boundaries and the territory to be so included, shall by order approve of a plan so submitted, or make such alterations thereon as he deems proper.

The LORD ADVOCATE: On a point of Order. Perhaps it may be convenient if I remind the hon. Member that under my right hon. Friend's proposal there will be no such case as that contemplated in the Amendment. Therefore, the Amendment is not required.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I could give illustrations of such cases.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Not under the Bill, with my right hon. Friend's Amendments

Mr. SULLIVAN: The object of the Amendment is to avoid unnecessary expense in connection with the taking over of territory, and to give powers to
the Secretary of State to approve the plan of the territory to be included or make necessary alterations.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Amendment relates to two or more burghs which are united by my right hon. Friend's proposals in pursuance of Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) unites the burghs mentioned in the Second Schedule. Of the burghs which are mentioned in the Second Schedule, there are two instances of burghs which have bits of counties in them. One instance is the burgh of Prestonpans, which, with the burgh of Cockenzie and Port Seton, forms the second paragraph of the Schedule, and the other is paragraph 3, the burghs of Kilrenny, Anstruther Easter, Anstruther Wester and Pittenweem. Pittenweem is separated from the other three burghs by an intervening bit of county territory. Under the Amendments which my right hon. Friend has put down to the Schedule, No. 2 disappears out of the list, and Pittenweem disappears out of No. 3. Those are the only instances of intervening county territory being affected, and, assuming the carrying of the Government proposal, this Amendment is really unnecessary.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think the Lord Advocate is a little too previous. It is quite true that with regard to those that are mentioned in the Schedule that may be the case. But as the Bill is going through the House various burghs are specially interested in what is taking place. It may quite well be, for example, that the burghs represented in Ayr burghs, face to face with the fact that their representative in this House has not been able to persuade the Government to take them out, will now come to the Government. Suppose Ardrossan and the neighbouring town council pass resolutions agreeing to combine so as to become a larger burgh, and they come to the Government and want to be included in the Schedule? There you have a case. All these contiguous burghs in Scotland are in the position that they did not know whether their representatives would be able to persuade the Government to protect their interests, and now, the Bill having passed so far, it is probable that many town councils will take action in order to protect themselves. This Amendment would provide for those cases. It is quite true that there is nothing definite, but anyone who has been in touch with the districts knows that there has been much talk about the possibility of that being done.
With regard to the burghs that are mentioned in the Schedule, the Lord Advocate said that it was all clear in their case now, and that nothing further was necessary. But there is another Sub-section with which we are dealing to-night, and the Secretary of State is taking to himself the powers of a Mussolini to deal with anything in case anything has been omitted. If no burghs come into this position in future there will be no harm done by passing the Amendment, but if there be some of these burghs, and we find that there has been a mistake made in regard to areas, we shall have provided for it. From my knowledge of the Scottish Office and the present regime, I shall be surprised if we do not discover later that there are many things of which no account has been taken.

Amendment negatived.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) Where a burgh being a royal burgh is united in pursuance of this Section with
a burgh other than a royal burgh, the royalty of the royal burgh shall be extended to comprehend the burgh other than the royal burgh, and where any burgh included in a united burgh is for the purpose of any statutory provision a Parliamentary burgh the united burgh shall for the purpose of such statutory provision be deemed to be a Parliamentary burgh.
This Amendment is to make it clear that in the case where a royal burgh is united by force under this Bill with another burgh which is not a royal burgh, the royalty of the old royal burgh shall be extended to coincide with the boundaries of the extended burgh. There are many reasons why that is advisable, but none more important than that of making it clear that it will be a continuing of the old royal burgh and the preservation of that sentiment which we are all anxious to preserve as far as we can. Similarly, the second part of the Amendment makes it clear that where a Parliamentary burgh is combined in the same way, the united burgh is, for the purpose of the statutory provisions, to be deemed to be a Parliamentary burgh.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 11, lint: 22, to leave out paragraph (a).
This is a drafting Amendment, and is coupled with another Amendment which is to be moved later to insert a new Subsection (5). The purpose of the two Amendments together is to apply automatically the provisions of the Bill and not to make that dependent on an Order by the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) Where two or more burghs are united in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Section, the whole functions of the councils of such burghs shall be transferred to and vest in the council of the united burgh, and the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer of and compensation to officers shall apply in like manner as they apply in the case of. officers of parish councils

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: I beg to move, as an Amendment; to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "officers," to insert the words:
provided that nothing in this Section shall operate so as to take from the burgesses
and ratepayers of a burgh possessed of a common good, the right to, and exclusive property in, such common good.
I am moving this Amendment in order to obtain a declaration from the Secretary of State simply for greater accuracy. There is, in many parts of the House, a feeling of misapprehension, which I do not share, as to whether small burghs mentioned in the First Schedule are in any way prejudiced in any funds which they may have as their own peculiar property. I shall be perfectly satisfied if the Secretary of State would give an assurance on that head—that beyond those items in the First Schedule the small burghs are not in any way prejudiced in their existing position.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The common good of the Royal burghs of Scotland is familiar to many people, and it is quite certain that under this Bill the common good qua common good will not be affected in any way. There have been cases where the common good has been used to supply a building for the purpose of another department of the burgh, and in every case, as far as I can ascertain, that building has been turned over to the department. It may happen, therefore, that that building is part of the health equipment of the burgh and will fall under the institutions which have been transferred under Clause 2, but that it is no longer part of the common good in any real sense. I thought it only fair to mention that so that there should be no misapprehension. The property of the common good of the burgh is not affected by any transferred provisions of this Bill found in Clause 2. That is the point on which, I understood, the hon. Gentleman desired reassurance.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: This is practically the only occasion in this Bill in which any reference at all is made to what is a very important item in the property of many of these Scottish burghs, namely, the common good. It is important that we should be perfectly clear as to what is transferred under the earlier Clauses of the Measure, and as to the precise effect of this Clause. Am I right in understanding from the Lord Advocate that the position would be as follows? We will take quite a common case of a burgh in Scotland which owns
farms or land that I would describe as the common good, in the use of which the burgh has considerable freedom at the present time in the use of their powers and duties under the ordinary legislation covering burghal administration. Unless I am wrong that, quite clearly, under all the changes of this Bill, remains indisputably the property of the burgh, but according to the Lord Advocate, if the common good has taken the form of some building or property which has become part of the public health administration, then, as I understand it, that goes to the county authorities or to the bodies to which these properties, powers and duties are transferred under this Bill. Is that the state of affairs, and is that quite clearly safeguarded under the Clauses as they are now drawn?

10.0 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Undoubtedly, in my opinion, it is perfectly clear. The common good has to be kept in a separate account, and I think it is quite clear that if, out of the common good, any building is built for the common good and for the benefit, say, of the public health department, that building must be transferred when set up to the public health department account. I mention that for the purpose of greater accuracy. That has become part of the public health equipment, and it is liable to be transferred under the transferred Clause as part of the public health equipment. But it is no longer part of the common good or of the common good account, and there is nothing in the Bill that can directly touch or affect the common good account. We are talking, of course, of transfer under Clause 2, but this point has been raised in another Clause in regard to a different matter, the combining of county councils and uniting burghs, under Clause 10. Where you are uniting the burghs, the common good extends equally with the royalty. This has been done in Edinburgh every time the royalty has been extended.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I do not in the least dispute what the Lord Advocate said about the property falling within the public health administration, and, of course, what he says about Edinburgh is also quite accurate, but only for the first time have we noticed in connection with this Bill, and more particularly under the
powers of transfer in the earlier part of the Bill, that there is no specific provision safeguarding the common good. I am not arguing for a moment that it is intended by the Government to make an inroad upon that, but now I can see the possibility of a difficulty of that kind emerging. Accordingly, I think it would be better to insert a provision in the Bill putting the ordinary common good of the burgh as divorced from any properties so hypothecated.

Mr. R. MITCHELL: May I be allowed to refer to the case where a burgh has, out of its common good, provided a clinic? The value of that asset still remains in the common good fund, and is to that extent security for the borrowing of the burgh. If under this Act that clinic, being now part of the health administration, passes over as an asset to the county, there is taken from the burgh one of the assets used as security for borrowing. It is taking an asset from the common good account of the burgh and leaving a liability in the common good account. Therefore, I think the Secretary of State might give some consideration to such a possibility, and perhaps he could insert some Clause before the Report stage which would give us greater assurance, and which would relieve anxiety.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We should be only too glad to consider any such point. Of course, one does not want or desire to touch property, but I should be surprised if such were the case. The liability retained is not necessarily the liability of the Health Department. I am quite willing to reconsider this point, but I am unable to conceive anything about the transfer which could be held by any stretch of language to include the common good.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I should not hesitate to say that under Clause 2, when you come to transfer these functions to the town councils, it is very likely that a difficulty of this kind may emerge. I am satisfied if the Lord Advocate will undertake to look into it, and put the common good beyond the shadow of a doubt into the Bill later.

Lieut.-General Sir AYLMER HUNTER-WESTON: This is a matter which is greatly troubling certain of the burghs in my constituency. They are not satis-
fied that under the Bill the common good is safeguarded. The common good in one of the burghs in my constituency has been used as an asset by which they have been able to raise money on cheaper terms than they could have done otherwise. It is of the greatest importance that the Government should make it clear, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the asset which the common good is to these burghs shall be in no way affected by this Bill I am quite sure that that is the intention of the Government; but, as it stands in the Bill, it is not clear, and I ask the Government to make it clear before the Report stage that nothing will touch the common good.

Mr. HARDIE: As to the question of the common good being used as an asset, may I ask, if you take from the common good certain services now rendered by it, what is to be the position?

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Dr. SHIELS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (5).
I think it is quite obvious that the combinations proposed in this Clause are not very happy ones, and I understand that the last two of them have been dropped. Even in regard to No. 3, which I understand is being dropped, I believe there is still a difference of opinion. It is obvious that these suggestions have been made without any proper consultation with the local authority, and I think that has been a very bad feature. I know, at least in regard to some of the burghs which are in a similar position, that the first intimation they got of it was when it was in the Bill. The only hope of success of combinations of this kind is to secure the good will of the localities beforehand. There is always a natural objection to uniting, especially, I think, with a near neighbour. Very often the nearer the neighbours are, the less likely they are to appreciate the prospect of being joined together.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the three Amendments were taken together, because they all hang together. There has been considerable feeling with regard to the amalgamation of burghs,
but it has not aroused anything like the feeling which has been created by the proposal to amalgamate the counties when that has been done without consultation with the local authorities.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments to which the hon. Member refers are, no doubt, of the same nature, but they do not apply to the same places, and I think it will be necessary to take one Amendment at a time.

Mr. WATSON: I do not see how we can discuss wiping out Sub-section (5) without discussing the details, and the other Amendments refer to the details.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member quite understands the position. The Amendment now before the Committee is an Amendment to leave out the whole of Sub-section (5). On that, of course, a general discussion can take place on the question of the populations dealt with in Sub-section (5), but when you come to the other special combinations, they will have to be dealt with separately on their own merits.

Mr. WATSON: It will certainly save discussion if we discuss the details now.

The CHAIRMAN: The more that is said now, the less perhaps will be said on the Amendments that follow.

Mr. WATSON: The proposed combination of Kinross and Perthshire is a very unhappy one, and I hope that the County of Kinross is going to be allowed to retain its identity in the same way as Nairn and Moray. It may be more economical and more advantageous for small counties to be amalgamated to large counties, but those small counties are particularly proud of their county associations and identities. Those who have had control of local administration in these counties will feel that in an amalgamation such as is proposed the whole identity of the county will have gone. With regard to the proposed combination of Kinross and Perth I do not know why Perth has been chosen. As far as Kinross has any connection with any other county, it is with the county of Fife. The only exception is in the matter of the Parliamentary representation which is shared with Perth. As regards
local services, the joint services are all shared with Fife and not with Perth. The sheriff of Fife is the sheriff of Kinross, and the chief constable of Fife is the chief constable of Kinross. There is a joint sanatorium for Fife and Kinross, and, in many other ways, these two counties are working together in local services. If there is any intention of amalgamating Kinross with any other county it should be with Fife, and certainly not with Perth. But my main contention is that Kinross should be allowed to retain its identity and that there should be no amalgamation of counties in Scotland.
The Government have done quite enough injury to local government in Scotland by amalgamating the burghs against the will of the. burghs without also forcing on the counties an amalgamation which the counties do not desire The Government have already dropped 50 per cent. of their proposals in this respect. The hon. and gallant Member for Bute (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) has been successful in getting the identity of the county of Bute retained and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this particular case also. It will do a great deal to allay feeling in these areas if he allows them to carry on their own local services, as they have done in bygone years, especially in view of the fact that the burgh of Kinross is to lose certain of its local services which will be transferred to the county council. If there is to be any amalgamation at all. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the claims of Fife and the services which Fife has rendered to Kinross.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is dealing with the case of Bute under this Amendment?

Mr. JAMES STUART: I hope the Secretary of State in his reply will deal with the case of Moray and Nairn which I have brought before him on various occasions both personally and by correspondence. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman has received a petition signed by a large percentage of the inhabitants of the county of Nairn, and I think he will agree that it is natural that the county of Nairn, being the smaller community, should be very apprehensive as to its position under the proposed amalgamation. The White Paper shows that
whereas Moray will have 35 members on the joint county council, Nairn will only have 12, and Nairn will therefore, in certain respects, be completely at the mercy of Moray—that is in respect of these services. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity of calling his attention to this point and I hope he will be able to reconsider the position of Nairn.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure that everyone will agree that what my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) has just said deserves very careful consideration, as indeed does this whole problem. Let me explain that the sole object of the Government in bringing about these combinations is to ensure that, just as the small burghs which are being combined, being incapable of themselves of bearing the burden of the great public health services and developing for their people those services which are essential to the life of the community, so it is essential that in some cases, fortunately in very few, certain counties in Scotland should be amalgamated for the carrying out of these services. If it is urged that the distinctive position of these counties should be maintained, the reply of course is that it is being maintained. Nothing in this Clause is going to take away from the county of Kinross its distinctive position either in name or as a county. It remains, and it retains its own local county council.
So far as this Sub-section is concerned —the island of Bute has been struck out, after representations and very careful consideration of the various factors in that particular case—in the case of Kinross and Perth, it was suggested that no consultation or investigation of the circumstances has taken place. That is very far from the case. When the problem of amalgamation was first considered, it did appear that Kinross might well have been amalgamated with the county of Fife, but on investigation, and from the representations made by those who speak for Kinross, it was clear that they desired that the amalgamation should be other than with the county of Fife. In view of the fact that all that the Government and I, personally, are desirous of obtaining is a linking up of the weaker
with the stronger for the general welfare of the community, it was obviously a question for consideration whether the county of Kinross should be amalgamated with Fife, or with Clackmannan, or with Perth. After the most careful consideration, and taking into account all the views expressed by those in the counties concerned, I have decided that the amalgamation should be with the county of Perth.
In the case of Moray and Nairn, my hon. Friend will realise that what I have just said about the necessity of combination in the case of Kinross and Perth applies in the same measure to the counties of Moray and Nairn. I realise, of course, the anxieties which must be in the minds of those who have for long held separate sway within their own particular borders, but I must plead with my hon. Friend to try to convey to those who are concerned in this matter the idea that, in fact, they are being combined for the common good of their we communities, and that they retain within their own borders their own identity and control over all the things which are their immediate concern in fact over those major services in which, because of the size of their population and their rateable value, it is inconceivable that they really can play a satisfactory part unless this combination takes place. The apprehension that the counties of Moray and Nairn would he swamped by amalgamation will, from this point of view I think, on further investigation not really have sure foundation. Surely those services which the public demand, and which they have the right to be given, can only properly be administered if those who are working them have the financial ability and area to be able to bear these burdens without undue severity on the general ratepayer. That is the foundation of and the necessity for these amalgamations. As regards the figures in the White Paper, what has been suggested in that Paper, based upon a variety of calculations which are explained, are not final and definite, and, of course, the Government will listen with great readiness to any representations that may be made, and, no doubt, after due consideration, certain alterations may be made.

Mr. J. BROWN: Is the Island of Bute to remain as a separate unit?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We have excluded it, and are leaving it as a separate unit.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not go a little further in explaining who was entitled to speak for the proposed combination of Perthshire and Kinross. I hope that he is not looking at this combination from the point of view of Parliamentary representation. I am aware that there is a combination in Parliamentary representation between Kinross and West Perthshire, but the combination that has been mentioned for county services ought to have greater consideration than any Parliamentary connection. The close and intimate connection presently existing between Perth and Fife with regard to the big county services are considerations which ought to have due weight if a combination be made. If a combination be made, we suggest, for very serious consideration, making the combination of Fife and Kinross instead of Perth and Kinross. There is an old saying in the part of the country to which

the right hon. Gentleman and I belong that, "Next to nae wife, a guid wife is best." The combination that already exists ought to demand his very serious consideration.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the Secretary of State for Scotland received any representation from the town council of Millport asking to be attached to Ayrshire? It is their unanimous desire that they should be linked with Ayrshire because of the better services that they are likely to get, so I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland—

It being half-pant Ten of the Clock the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 32, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 108.

Division No. 177.1
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dixey, A. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W,


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Atkinson, C.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hume, Sir G. H


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Iveagh, Countess of


Blundell, F. N.
Flelden, E. B.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kennedy, A. R (Preston)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forrest, W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Loder, J. de V.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Looker, Herbert William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Buchan, John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lumley, L. R.


Burman, J. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S)
Hacking, Douglas H.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maclntyre, I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hamilton, Sir George
Macmillan, Captain H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hanbury, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Clarry, Reginald George
Harland, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Clayton, G. C.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Couper, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd. Henley)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hannessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.


Crookehank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Hills, Major John Waller
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hilton, Cecil
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandon, Lord
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Nuttall, Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Oakley, T.
Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Skelton, A. N.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, S. R.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Raine, Sir Walter
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Rhys Hon. C. A. U.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Withers, John James


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hersford)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wolmer, Viscount


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Womersley, W. J.


Ropner, Major L.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wragg, Herbert


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Rye, F. G.
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen. South)



Salmon, Major I.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tinne, J. A.
Mr. Penny and Sir. Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hall, G. H. (Marthyr Tydvll)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Hamiton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sakiatvala, shapurji


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Shlels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennin (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, Q.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clark, A. B.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Longbottom, A. W.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Vlant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne)


Dennlson, R.
Mackinder, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnlco, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Weish, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, Jamas
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rotslyn (Paisley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Wright, W.


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palln, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingslay
Paling, W.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendments made:

In page 11, line 37, leave out paragraphs (iii) and (iv).

In page 12, line 6, after the word "councils," insert the words:
(reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act).

In. line 12, at the end, insert the words:
(c) For the purposes of this Act so far as relating to functions for which the combination shall have effect the joint county council shall be the transferee authority instead of the county councils of the two counties, and any such functions vested at the commencement of this Act in either of the county councils of the two counties shall be transferred to and vest in the joint county council.

In page 12, leave out from the word "of," in line 34, to the word "shall," in line 37, and insert instead thereof the words: "sub-section (2) of section twenty of this Act."

In page 13, line 8, leave out Sub-section (7).—[Sir John Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 111.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[10.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Apsley, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hamilton, Sir George
Price, Major C. W. M.


Atkinson, C.
Hanbury, C.
Radford, E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Harland, A.
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Braun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Buchan, John
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, Louts W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Clarry, Reginald George
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clayton, G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Lamb, J. O.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Leigh Sir John (Clapham)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Little, Or. E. Graham
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Loder, J. de V.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maclntyre, Ian
Vaunhan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dixey, A. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S R


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wilson, Sir c. H. (Leeds, Central)


Flelden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Withers, John James


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore-Braharon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Galbraith J. F W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Gates, Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nuttall, Ellis



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hnn. W. (Fife, West)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barr, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Bellamy, A.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scurr, John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bate)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Clark, A. B.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Smillie, Robert


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Smith, Renin (Penlstone)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Stamford, I


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Dennison, R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sullivan, Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T
Sutton, J. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tomllnson, R. P.


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J, P.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Greanall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianally)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. {York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Paling. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Haves and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to combination of local authorities.)

Amendments made:

In page 14, line 2, after the word "committee," insert the words:
for the transfer of any property or liabilities held or incurred by or on behalf of any of the authorities concerned for the purpose for which the combination shall have effect.

In page 14, leave out from the word "asylum," in line 5, to the first "and," in line 10, and insert instead thereof the words:
or institution for mental defectives has been provided by a district board of control whose functions are by this Act transferred to two or more transferee authorities, or where it appears to the General Board of Control for Scotland to be necessary for the purpose of any statutory provision relating to a particular district, board that there should be a combination of the two or more transferee authorities to which the functions of that district board are by this Act transferred, such transferee authorities shall be deemed to have combined for the provision and maintenance of such asylum or institution or for the purpose of the said statutory provision, as the case may be.

In line 35, after the word "Acts," insert the words:
or in the case of any churchyard which is not wholly within the area of one local authority under the Burial Grounds Acts.

In line 37, after the word "district," insert the words "or the churchyard, as the case may be."

In line 39, leave out the words "Registrar-General for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "Central Department."

In page 15, line 24, at the end, add the words:
(10) Nothing in this Section shall authorise a combination of local authorities for any purpose in regard to which provision is made by any other Act for combination of local authorities whether by the appointment of a joint committee or by other provision for the joint exercise of powers, with the sanction of or on an Order by a Government Department.—[Sir John Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205, Noes, 104.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[10.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Apsley, Lord
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atkinson, C.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard


Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Raine, Sir Walter


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hills. Major John Waller
Rye, F. G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan, John
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Cayzer, Maj Sir Herbt. R (Prtsmth, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Chapman, Sir S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)


Clayton, G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J. B
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lamb. J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltand)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tinne, J. A.


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tomilnson, R. P.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macmillan, Captain H.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L (Kingston-on-Hull)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Marvyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wells, S. R.


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Fraser Captain Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moora-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gates, Percy
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Withers, John James


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wolmer, viscount


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wragg, Herbert


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Mr. Penny and Sir, Victor


Hamilton, Sir George
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warrender.


Hanbury, C.
Price, Major C. W. M.



NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clark, A. B.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluss, W. S.
Greenall, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barnes, A.
Connolly, M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Barr, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bellamy, A.
Dennison, R.
Groves, T.


Bondfield, Margaret
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dunnico, H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bromley, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hardie, George D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Glliett, George M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hirst, G. H.




Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Sutton, J. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palln, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Kennedy, T.
Pethick-Lawrence F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kirkwood, D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lansbury, George
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Lindley, F. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lowth, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianolly)


Lunn, William
Shfels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon)
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Windsor, Walter


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smillie, Robert
Wright, W.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charles


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sullivan, J.
Edwards.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Byres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'clock.